US Politicians Want To Raise Broadcast Flag

[oldfart13]

"In most cases, we lead, you follow. Monkey see, monkey do"

I figure we'll end up getting the same current state of affairs as we do now with players made in the Far East, especially China...ie. "hidden menus". China will no longer follow since discovering their economic clout goes very far indeed. That "in most cases" seems a bit archaic when dealing with the coming New World Order...

[somebodeez]

So go ahead - do your darndest to convince me.

One word: Piracy!

... Quite a few people are looking for the cheap way to record and archive television(Violation of the law). Others are looking for the cheap way to own movies they didn't pay for(Pay Per View Recordings).

...This is why hardware/network based security measures will and must be instituted. Rampant piracy will continue to a point where it's no longer profitable to produce entertainment.

I'm not convinced yet. You'll have to do better than that

Cheap way to own movies they didn't pay for? Um, unless they are stealing their cable service, they did pay for it and on top of that paid for the PPV movie.

Rampant lock downs may continue to a point where it is no longer enjoyable and therefore valueless to the consumer to bother with the entertainment the industry produces. :P

[adam]

somebodeez he's obviously not talking about the guy who capped his own broadcast for himself and that is not what the broadcast flag stops. He is talking about the X number of people who download it without paying anything for it because of the one dumbass who thought it was cool to stick it to the industry. You can still time-shift, you will just be limited in the ways you can send it to your computer so that you cannot easily, or in the same quality, upload it onto the internet.

[somebodeez]

somebodeez he's obviously not talking about the guy who capped his own broadcast for himself and that is not what the broadcast flag stops. He is talking about the X number of people who download it without paying anything for it because of the one dumbass who thought it was cool to stick it to the industry. You can still time-shift, you will just be limited in the ways you can send it to your computer so that you cannot easily, or in the same quality, upload it onto the internet.

Since he quoted me, I thought he was trying to respond to my post where I requested those who defend this to try to convince me, as a consumer on just exactly why I should go out and buy 1000's of $ worth of new yet less functional equipment than what I have now and why I should continue to pay for my cable service.

And it is my understanding that the broadcast flag will stop the guys (or in my case, the gals ) who caps a broadcast for themselves.

[somebodeez]

You can still time-shift, you will just be limited in the ways you can send it to your computer so that you cannot easily, or in the same quality, upload it onto the internet.

BTW, as mentioned earlier, I cap with my computer.

[ROF]

Since he quoted me, I thought he was trying to respond to my post where I requested those who defend this to try to convince me, as a consumer on just exactly why I should go out and buy 1000's of $ worth of new yet less functional equipment than what I have now and why I should continue to pay for my cable service.

And it is my understanding that the broadcast flag will stop the guys (or in my case, the gals ) who caps a broadcast for themselves.

Exactly. I was directing my post towards your comments because you asked. Piracy is the word. Piracy involves recording a $6.95 Pay Per View Movie just as much as it involves copying a $4.50 rental. It's illegal to time-shift a rental whether the rental is on a pay-per-view basis or a brick and mortar store media rental. This is what broadcast flags do. They prevent unauthorized copying of material. Your cable bill provides you with a service. Your pay-per-view bill provides you with a service. None of those services authorize you to archive the broadcasted material. Most of this material can be archived or time-shifted and watched at a later date. The problem is, quite a few people see their cable bill and pay per view bill not as a service, but an ownership of the broadcast material. You do not own the broadcast, you rent the service which provides the broadcast. You won't have to buy $1000 of dollars worth of equipment because unless it's illegally manufactured it won't get around the broadcast flag anyway. Your cable company will provide the equipment for you. All you need to do is ask for the service and they provide the equipment. They'll even provide written instructions or even online videos of how to hook up and use such equipment. There is one station in my digital service dedicated to telling you how my set top box and DVR functions. It explains how to hook up a DVD Recorder and explains which shows can and which shows can't be recorded.

I'm sorry if I can't explain it any better, but you asked why broadcast flags are being introduced and the easiest and most complete answer is piracy. Just look at the weekly threads that appear here asking how to back up movies. Ever notice how it's always the same people talking? Is it really for backup purposes or is it piracy?

[adam]

@somebodeez: And once again, here's to hoping that you will not have to replace anything.

Your understanding of the broadcast flag is incorrect. Assuming your hardware/software complies with the requirements than you will be able to cap your broadcasts for a later viewing. Assuming another piece of hardware/software also meets those requirements you will be able to output the signal there as well. Any hardware/software that does not meet the restrictions will be the dead link in the chain. It will be up to the manufacturers to conform their products so that they allow you to still access that broadcast signal without being able to export it to computer in an an unprotected form. I don't see why you wouldn't still be able to cap to your computer and watch it there, the hardware/software will just be locked from exporting to any kind of raw file form. It will only be able to export to an approved media player that also limits raw file export. The result is that you can view it, just not save it in a permanent format that can be distributed. That is EXACTLY the service you pay for when you subscribe to any kind of broadcasting program.

I imagine that the vast majority of external PVR's will be a non-issue. They will still record as usual, the exporting will just be limited. Yes computers will be effected the most since they are the biggest threat, and basically the hub where mass distribution occurs. But pc peripherals and software can still be brought into compliance.

[somebodeez]

I'm sorry if I can't explain it any better, but you asked why broadcast flags are being introduced and the easiest and most complete answer is piracy.

No ,that was not my question (sigh).

You won't have to buy $1000 of dollars worth of equipment because unless it's illegally manufactured it won't get around the broadcast flag anyway. Your cable company will provide the equipment for you. All you need to do is ask for the service and they provide the equipment.

I do not rent any equipment from my cable co. other than the cable boxes.
They get enough $ out of us now as it is.
(we don't even order PPV)
Once more - I cap with my computer. That suits my needs just fine.
I don't want to go out and buy/rent other equipment.

[ROF]

I don't see why you wouldn't still be able to cap to your computer and watch it there, the hardware/software will just be locked from exporting to any kind of raw file form.

Don't take my ramblings about support for this to mean I don't also see the other side. There are legit gripes about these types of things and I believe you will find most software based captures to be denied under this new flagging. That in my opinion is wrong, because you bought the hardware and software as a capture device with TV Tuning included. You will probably lose the TV recording capability on most channels (those which contain these flags) which kinda puts a damper on the TV Tuner technology. Alot of people, myself included use a spare computer as a DVR and network the recorded media to other televisions or burn the files recorded to discs for portability. These broadcast flags, as I read them, will deny us this capability which I'm not happy about, but my anger isn't with Congress, the MPAA, or any other organization. It's the pirates who have forced the issue and it's the incapabilitiy of stopping these pirates that has caused me undue harm in my television viewing habits.

[somebodeez]

Oh goodie so the video card I have in my computer now won't have to be replaced :P

Oh joy, oh rapture, I could still be able to burn what I cap onto a DVDR and be able to play it in any of my set top players, on any TV any time, any where and view it however many times I want and I won't have to go out and purchase anything. According to you 2, I won't be inconvenienced at all - YAY!






Yeah, right

[somebodeez]

Opps! Sorry, ROF.
We must of been typing our replies at the same time.

[adam]

Oh goodie so the video card I have in my computer now won't have to be replaced :P

Oh joy, oh rapture, I could still be able to burn what I cap onto a DVDR and be able to play it in any of my set top players, on any TV any time, any where and view it however many times I want and I won't have to go out and purchase anything. According to you 2, I won't be inconvenienced at all - YAY!






Yeah, right

For the last damn time, this is how its SUPPOSED to work! This is what its INTENDED to prevent, and what is INTENDED NOT to prevent! The extent of its incidental effects is something we will just have to monitor when and if the bill passes.

But your demands that we convince you of anything and your sarcasm are misplaced since all the things you fear and complain about are the very things that the techology is specifically catered to avoid.

Neither of us are fans of this technology, but its hard for me to be sympathetic to your arguments because you are only looking at the potential fallout and not the objective purpose and design.

[lordsmurf]

you are only looking at the potential fallout and not the objective purpose and design.

I don't see anything wrong with that.
Forget the purpose. The end result is far more important.

A or B:

(A)
Murderer: "I didn't mean to kill him. That wasn't my purpose!"
Police: "Okay, that's alright, nevermind."

(B)
Murderer: "I didn't mean to kill him. That wasn't my purpose!"
Police: "That's no excuse. Off to the pokey with you."

[adam]

I said purpose and design. You cannot even begin to contemplate what the result will be unless you know the first thing about what the techology even does and why it does it. She's both assuming the worst and assuming that that's the goal.

The flag is not intended to take away your rights, its intended to restrict your activities to only those that you have a right to do.

As for your analogy, I choose C: Not Applicable.

[somebodeez]

Neither of us are fans of this technology, but its hard for me to be sympathetic to your arguments because you are only looking at the potential fallout and not the objective purpose and design.

Ofcourse I am looking at the "potential fallout"! As a consumer - that's my concern. The " the objective purpose and design" is not.

Like you basically said - I shall just have to wait and see for myself.

[edDV]

An alternative proposal.

Maybe Congress could "help" Hollywood force the issue with a new DTV scheme. Program producers get to choose whether material will be freely distributed or tightly protected. DTV channels can be easily divided into "free" and "closed" (high DRM with PPV or advertising support) subchannels.

By law the "free" subchannel could be accessed 100% (including HDTV, media center computers, tivo and home networking) without need for new DRM equipment. Attaching any form of DRM to broadcasts on the "free" channel would be prohibited by law.

The closed high DRM subchannel will optionally offer the broadcast flag which will require HDCP, DTCP and CPRM controlled euipment in order to watch or closed DVR timeshift the material.

This separate but unequal scheme would be most fair to consumers because their existing equipment (especially their very expensive HDTV sets and computer DVRs) are not randomly rendered useless by the broadcast flag. Media center computers and home networking are allowed to flourish on the free subchannel without DRM overhead.

Program producers can choose their method of distribution and audience. Advertisers can decide where to place their support. Consumers can decide whether they want to invest in equipment for the "closed" channel just as they do today with premium cable channels.

Example 1: Series program like "Lost"

Producers could opt to place the 480p version on the "free" channel and the 720p version on the closed channel. An advertiser like say Intel, could become a hero by sponsoring the 720p version (DRM free) on the free channel. Note that the 1080p version will only be available on the tightly DRM'd HD DVD.

Example 2: Classic series "Star Trek"

A remastered (from 35mm film) 1080i version could be offered on the free channel sponsored by "Microsoft Media Center 2006-HD".

Example 3: Star Wars III movie.

The "closed" subchannel could compete directly with cable PPV offering either a DTV station PPV or network sponsored "limited" broadcast. "Limited" could mean only "HD 720p/1080i record flagged". This would target availability and advertising only to POSH HD-HDCP set owners.

Example 4: A new techie targeted independent series "StarGate II - The Future" could be offered in 1080p24 on syndicated release to DTV independents for "free" subchannel only distribution. This would consume the entire ATSC DTV channel bandwidth but would differentiate the independent channel from the networks plus offer local advertiser "hero" sponsoring. Of course tuners would still downscale this to 480i for the masses but the 1080p24 "super HD" would draw the geeks.

All of this increases competition, offers free consumer access, increases advertising targeting and offers local broadcasters increased revenue opportunities.

Hollywood media producers can play in either sandbox. If they withhold material from the "free" channel, then advertisers would be standing in line to sponsor new independent producers willing to offer DRM free material to the general audience. Production costs are dropping and production talent is in surplus.

OK I'm done. Consider this Rev zero.

[Cornucopia]

adam--I respect your opinion and understand you legal credentials, and usually side with you on most topics, but I'm starting to fall on the other side here. You mention that people don't understand the specifics of the bill without reading it...

Well, without reading it, I'm assuming the flag itself to be similar to SCMS or CGMS flags. They allow:

1. Always copy/record
2. Copy/record once only
3. Never copy/record

The rest of the arguement seems to be about all the HDCP/Trusted computing--all that enforced "no weak link in the chain" talk.

I expect the latter to happen even though I'm not too happy with it. I'm a Democratic Socialist/Populist at heart and think of content as ultimately belonging to "the people" (and not in 100+ years). But I'm a realist and I know that with the Internet and everything being digitized, one must have "secure paths". But who decides the level, who holds the keys to this security?

The other part is that #3 above. If it's standard DTV, I would expect that to never be implemented, but does anybody here honestly think that corporations are doing this for the consumer? No, it's greed that made this bill, and I can guarantee you that because of that underlying greed, they'll use #3 so that they can do more sell-through DVD's, etc.

Which, IMHO, completely goes against the idea of FREE broadcast TV and is UNdemocratic and consumer-UNfriendly.

"When Broadcast recording is outlawed, only outlaws will record broadcasts". Then I guess there will be many here and elsewhere who will start to be considered (and consider themselves) outlaws.

Laws like these need to be changed...
Kinda reminds me of the Civil Rights sit-ins of the '60s. 8)

Just some food for thought.

Scott

[ROF]

The flag is not intended to take away your rights, its intended to restrict your activities to only those that you have a right to do.

Exactly. In most cases, this is a pro-consumer as you will have little worry of the police knocking on your door for FCC violations, if the broadcaster denies you the option to begin with. The flag will function similiar to those which are already attached to pay-per-view channels. If you figured out a way to bypass that already, you maybe in luck in the future. Although chances are, if you figured out a "loophole", they've also figured out that you know the loophole and will probably fix that before implementing this important feature into our TV viewing lives.

[Cornucopia]

They won't be implementing this into my TV viewing life for awhile. I'll sooner skip HD capability--even though I've seen good HD and know what it's capable of--that have to buy more stuff that producers/distributors want to stuff down my throat.

IF and only IF...
Consumers won't have to pay additionally/premium for this AT ALL, and
Consumers can still have the same (legal) functionality that they currently enjoy,
THEN and only THEN should it even be considered as a bill.

Scott

[adam]

adam--I respect your opinion and understand you legal credentials, and usually side with you on most topics, but I'm starting to fall on the other side here.

I'm really not on either side. I would like to not have this scheme put into place but realistically I see it as being inevitable in the transition to HD. I'm mainly just taking issue with the same jumps to conclusions that always crop up in these types of threads. I'm not arguing in favor of the broadcast flag, I'm arguing in favor of an open mind.

[Cornucopia]

Sorry adam,

...MUST...KEEP...BAD_CORPORATIONS_OUT;...MIND...ST ARTING...TO_CLOSE....



Scott

[lordsmurf]

In most cases, this is a pro-consumer as you will have little worry of the police knocking on your door for FCC violations, if the broadcaster denies you the option to begin with.

I take it you have no idea what the FCC does.

[ungamunga]

snipped to avoid bloat

It seems to me that such a system that gives almost total legislative power to the majority party coalition of the day would result in sweeping changes every time a new government is formed following an election.

The US legislative system relies on complex webs of interest coalitions that cross party lines and remain in position when party majority changes. Only if a two thirds majority is achieved can a single party command the level of power of a parliamentary majority.

All of this is largely independent of the President in power and his party. The President has to convince his own party and individual members of the opposition to support his program. It is similar to "forming a govenment" around each piece of legislation.

All of this is designed to give some power to minority interests and to make major change difficult or impossible without two thirds support.

We traditionally have a multiparty (rather that a two-party) system here. In the past, we often had two strong parties and a bevy of smaller ones. Currently we have one strong one, one mid-strength one and two smaller but parties. All hold non-neglible numbers of seats in parliament. Getting a majority here means beating out all the other parties combined, not just beating one other party. We currently have a minority government and are likely to have another one after the next election (the electorate is punishing our strongest political party for its hubris and corruption in past years).

The British-style system does indeed place almost total legislative power in the hands of the majority party in the Commons. Westminster-style systems of government expect the majority party to govern... period. The role of the opposition is to scrutinize the actions of the government and keep them honest. They don't really have any practical ability to introduce their own legislation although they can often influence the shaping of legislation by pointing out its failings either in commitee or during a reading in one of the chambers of parliament.

Our executive branch (i.e. the PM and the cabinet ministers) are traditionally sitting members of parliament so they have to face and answer opposition questioning on a regular basis. They cannot isolate themselves from the legislature because they are its leaders. Our cabinet members are traditionally elected members of parliament and can be voted out of office by their constituents (happens fairly often with unpopular ministers).

Imagine Dubya being forced to answer questions from Pelosi, Hillary and Kerry on a daily basis and facing jeering whenever he dodges a question. Imagine that playing on the evening news. That's what our PM, Tony Blair and other Brit-style PMs deal with. Instead of legalistic checks and balances, the majority party is kept in line by constant and very public scrutiny. If a very contentious and publicly unpopular issue is being forced through parliament, the majority party is typically expected to call an election over the issue to renew their mandate to govern. Failing to do so risks angering the electorate and getting creamed at the polls next time.

If the government screws up, they tend to get voted out of office. Incumbants do tend to win more than non-incumbants here but their seats in parliament are rarely completely secure. We have a much higher turnover rate among our politicians than your Congress seems to have. We currently have 4 major political parties and a fifth one is slowly gaining credibility. Back in the early 90s, a majority government was annihilated in the polls by an angry populace (reduced to a mere two seats in parliament). That centre-right party ceased to exist about a decade later (kind of merged, kind of was absorbed by another party that only formed around 20 years ago).

We also have four other forces that can slow down a majority party in a hurry to change everything. First, there is the judicial branch. Our supreme court is very active and our constitution puts some strong limits on the government. Second, there is the civil service. Our civil service acts as a strong moderating force and provides considerable inertia for any radical reformers to overcome.

Third, there is the senate. The upper house consists of members appointed for life (well, until 75 IIRC) by prime ministers past and present. Any party that stays in power for a long time will obviously end up packing the senate with mostly their own party members. In theory, the Senate has almost as much power as the Commons (except in regards to appropriations). However, the senate is bound by tradition to defer to the commons and will almost never strike down a bill from the commons. In real life, no one pays much attention to the Senate here. They will however stall problem bills and suggest amendments and improvements (often good ones). Their main function in real life is to serve as a semi-advisory body that represents the "wisdom of the ages". Appointments to the senate are pretty much just cushy patronage jobs given to loyal party members.

The last line of defence against an out of control parliament would be the Governor General, our head of state. In theory, this is the most powerful person in the country and the commander-in-chief of our military. In reality, it's an almost completely ceremonial job. The GG serves as the ribbon-cutter, dignitary hosting role model which conviently allows the PM to get down and dirty in the political fighting. While it would cause a tremendous constitutional crisis (n.b. much of our constitution is unwritten tradition, like most British-style parliamentary states), the GG has some impressive reserve powers they can exercise including the ability to dissolve parliament and control the armed forces. In effect, they can pull the plug on an out of control legislature.

So, yeah, our system gives the majority party a hell of a lot of power and lets them completely dominate the legislative agenda. We don't have a seperately elected executive branch so we have neither the benefits nor the headaches that entails either. The party that sweeps the elections wins big but our population expects them to deliver or we will vote them back out. Incumbants do not see 90%+ re-election rates. In some elections, it's less than 50%. The people are used to voting out lousy politicos and only the most politically savvy last more than 2-3 terms.

It's a different way of doing things. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses and compared to most of the world's governments both are pretty darn good.

However, getting back to the original point that spawned all this discussion of political systems, it is my suspicion that it is the very reliance on those "complex webs of interest coalitions" that you pointed out in the American system that is the underlying motivator behind how common the practice of using riders is in the US. The nature of the system encourages such deals as a means of building the needed coalitions to pass individual pieces of legislation.

Here, our politicians have no such motivation to cut deals unless it is a minority situation and our political traditions dictate that those deals will be made in other ways than via riders. Here, deals are made between political parties, not between individual party members. Heck, that sort of vote trading behaviour would get an MP kicked out of their party caucus in most cases.

In other words, the riders evolved as a means of getting around the very checks and balances in your system that are supposed to stop political shenanigans. Other democracies that use different checks and balances (or simply less of them, relying instead on an active electorate to correct abuse) don't see the problem because their systems don't encourage it as a means of getting things done.

As to whether those riders are good or bad, well, from an outsider's perspective they seem darn underhanded and sneaky but it does seem to allow things to get done in Washington.

[ungamunga]

@ungamunga: I completely agree, however one reason for riders is simply that the our legislative session is so ridiculously short compared to how much needs to get done. If a primary bill is shot down one session its not likely to even be given consideration in the next. The only way to even raise the issue is to consolidate it with something else. It can be a benign process.

But we saw the broadcast flag get shot down as a primary bill and then tacked on as a rider later in the same session, and now its being tacked on again later. So in this instance I think its a bad example of how riders function.

Yep, pretty much. If the system makes it hard to get things done one way, people will find another way to do things. Since we're talking about politicians, ethics only vaguely enter into the picture. :P

[edDV]

[quote="ungamunga"]

snipped to avoid bloat

...

So, yeah, our system gives the majority party a hell of a lot of power and lets them completely dominate the legislative agenda. We don't have a seperately elected executive branch so we have neither the benefits nor the headaches that entails either. The party that sweeps the elections wins big but our population expects them to deliver or we will vote them back out. Incumbants do not see 90%+ re-election rates. In some elections, it's less than 50%. The people are used to voting out lousy politicos and only the most politically savvy last more than 2-3 terms.

It's a different way of doing things. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses and compared to most of the world's governments both are pretty darn good.

...

I shall ponder all this and try to relate to media DRM.

[ungamunga]

I shall ponder all this and try to relate to media DRM.

I got pretty off topic there. I'm a bit of a politics geek. As to how it relates to media DRM, it just means that here we're unlikely to see media DRM snuck in by means of backdoor legislation.

Instead, we'll see it snuck in as part of a larger intellectual property law overhaul or presented to parliament as part of an anti-piracy bill. Heck, they might even present it with no subterfuge whatsoever. The left-wing parties would squawk but the right-wing opposition party would probably support it since it's a pro-business thing. Our current minority gov't is centrist (by our standards).

I know they are trying to close some loopholes in the current copyright laws regarding filesharing (but that bill will likely die on the floor when someone triggers an election in the next six months). None of our political parties are really all that interested in intellectual property law reform and they only give it enough lip service to shut up the music and film industry (who have less clout here, whereas our telcomm companies tend to fight strong DRM type stuff because it upsets their customers). So token efforts to reform are made and the public really isn't keen on it.

DRM legislation won't win any votes, might lose some votes and with the recent reforms in our campaign finance laws it's actually kind of hard to buy the political influence needed. There are tons of more pressing issues on the national agenda. Sure there are lobbyists but they aren't anywhere near as powerful as those in Washington. More like PR hacks really. Eventually enough international pressure will come to bear to force more substantial changes but no one is in a hurry about it.

We do seem to get a bit more public and judicial backlash over such encroachment on fair use but we're party to most of the same international treaties. It's coming here too. Since we get a lot of our media broadcasts from the States, it's unavoidable no matter what our national government does.

[edDV]

I shall ponder all this and try to relate to media DRM.

I got pretty off topic there. I'm a bit of a politics geek. As to how it relates to media DRM, it just means that here we're unlikely to see media DRM snuck in by means of backdoor legislation.

Instead, we'll see it snuck in as part of a larger intellectual property law overhaul or presented to parliament as part of an anti-piracy bill. Heck, they might even present it with no subterfuge whatsoever. The left-wing parties would squawk but the right-wing opposition party would probably support it since it's a pro-business thing. Our current minority gov't is centrist (by our standards).

...

Here the pro DRM advocates are led by left wing Hollywood who want to preserve the old status quo of high cost union production and tightly controlled oligarchic distribution (first movie theaters, then DVD, then broadcast). Canada and others have pulled much of the movie and tv series production away with non-union labor or more reasonable work rules.

Other DRM enforcement demand comes from the software and video game industries which are more of a centrist business community. I don't think the right wing has a dog in this fight other than a bias against Hollywood and video games. The libertarians would probably end govt enforced DRM completely.

The FCC (Democrats and Republicans) gave into Hollywood "broadcast flag" demands in order to get the digital tv conversion done. The FCC and the telecommunication industry want to free the lower VHF bands for wireless telco+data and that is their driving aganda.

I don't think the public will like the broadcast flag or HD DVD DRM restrictions. It could turn into a major political revolt and those 20 members of Congress better watch their political backs.

BTW, did you see my alternative proposal above?

[ungamunga]

If I put on my "US political spectrum" goggles (i.e. shift my entire notion of what is right and left WAY to the right), I can follow you. However, what you guys call left-wing is pretty much centrist to centre-right in Canada, Europe and other industrialized nations. I honestly don't understand your "loonie left" - they are so bitter and lack the sense of idealism I'm used to associating with left-wing thinkers.

The idea of labelling Hollywood as left-wing is odd to someone who is used to thinking of the left as naturally hostile to big business (and Hollywood is big business). Hollywood is self-interested, like all other business. It's a bunch of soul-less corporate interests. How could they be left-wing (i.e. pro-wealth redistribution, anti-corporate)? Just because they don't like stodgy conservatism? That'd make them centrists... maybe. It doesn't compute without remapping my notion of the political spectrum. Most of the US left-wing is pro-corporate (they just like different industries) to some degree... sort of a "light version" of the right or like centrists who don't realize that they aren't "one side of the aisle"... so strange (and I mean no offense or disrespect by that... it's just a very different way of seeing the world).

Yes, I saw your proposal. It's an interesting approach... sort of a value-added set-up to make the DRM "enhanced" media worthwhile without excessively infringing upon fair use. I could see that approach having some fans here if it were popularized but I have trouble imagining Hollywood going for it. They are so completely hung up on maximizing their control and quashing fair use as much as possible that they'd never accept a multi-stream approach.

[edDV]

If I put on my "US political spectrum" goggles (i.e. shift my entire notion of what is right and left WAY to the right), I can follow you. However, what you guys call left-wing is pretty much centrist to centre-right in Canada, Europe and other industrialized nations. I honestly don't understand your "loonie left" - they are so bitter and lack the sense of idealism I'm used to associating with left-wing thinkers.

The idea of labelling Hollywood as left-wing is odd to someone who is used to thinking of the left as naturally hostile to big business (and Hollywood is big business). Hollywood is self-interested, like all other business. It's a bunch of soul-less corporate interests. How could they be left-wing (i.e. pro-wealth redistribution, anti-corporate)?

Well if using the USA goggles, Hollywood falls into sort of a left speaking, oligarchic acting hypocracy, where power and influence is sought, but wealth is not to be actually shared except for left Democratic Party political contributions and limited funding of the "loonie left". They feel that is enough of sharing thank you.

"Hollywood" is made up of a few medium sized corporate divisions and many small to medium businesses plus a phone book of individual contractors. It's a relatively small project oriented specialty business.

The video game industry generates more revenue than the production side of Hollywood. The TV networks are all owned by the east coast financial interests except for Disney. Hollywood isn't that much of a big deal in Corporate America. Agriculture is the main California industry. As for exports Entertainment products aren't even in the top 10. Electronics and Industrial Equipment come first in exports.

So much for political camera positions.

[ROF]

In most cases, this is a pro-consumer as you will have little worry of the police knocking on your door for FCC violations, if the broadcaster denies you the option to begin with.

I take it you have no idea what the FCC does.

I hope so. In the last 20 years or so I've paid them over $200 in licensing/renewal fees and I'm also a member of ARRL. I've got a pretty good understanding about the FCC and what they do and how I have helped them during times of need.