Court rejects FCC rule for digital piracy curbs

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Court rejects FCC rule for digital piracy curbs

By Jon Healey
Los Angeles Times

An appeals court yesterday tossed out rules requiring anti-piracy technology in new digital TV receivers and recorders, saying the Federal Communications Commission had overstepped its authority.

The unanimous decision by three judges from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a blow to the major Hollywood studios and television networks that had been the driving force behind the regulation.

But it was welcomed by some consumer groups and technology advocates, who said the rule gave the government too much power over computers, software and other digital gear.

The studios and networks are expected to take their case to Congress. Getting lawmakers' attention might be a challenge, given the other important piracy- and communications-related topics bubbling up in Washington, D.C. These include shutting off analog TV broadcasts, revamping telecommunications regulation and, potentially, trying to stop businesses that profit from piracy.

At issue is the so-called Broadcast Flag, a system for deterring piracy that the FCC mandated in November 2003.

The FCC's order required that televisions, video recorders, computers and other devices that received or interpreted digital TV signals use government-approved anti-piracy technology by July. That technology would bar the devices from retransmitting a digital TV show to the Internet or any other device that could not meet the FCC's anti-piracy requirements.

Proponents argued that the rule would help protect high-definition TV shows from being swapped online. Without this protection, they claimed, Hollywood studios and other copyright owners would be reluctant to let their most valuable programs be shown on free, over-the-air TV stations.

Dan Glickman, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America, echoed these themes in a statement released yesterday.

"If the Broadcast Flag cannot be used, program providers will have to weigh whether the risk of theft is too great over free (local TV) broadcasting and could limit such high-quality programming to only cable, satellite and other more secure delivery systems," he said. "We will continue working aggressively on all fronts to make sure consumers will have access to high-value content on broadcast television."

FCC officials declined to comment.

Opponents argued that the piracy threat was overstated, the flag system was easy to circumvent, and the regulations would interfere with some viewers' ability to enjoy digital TV broadcasts when and where they wished. Beyond that, they said, the rules would bring a vast range of digital products under the FCC's purview, possibly even Microsoft's next computer operating system.

"This is not about digital TV, it's about the FCC regulating all kinds of new technology and having to pass judgment about new software," said President Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, the technology advocacy group that led the appeal. "Congress has to ask itself the question, 'Do we want to have a Federal Computer Commission?' "

The 34-page opinion by Circuit Judge Harry Edwards did not address whether broadcasts should be protected against piracy or whether the system required by the FCC would be effective. Instead, Edwards ruled that the FCC did not have authority to take up the issue in the first place.

donut debonair (donut), Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Hooray! Let's copy everything.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Getting lawmakers' attention might be a challenge, given the other important piracy- and communications-related topics bubbling up in Washington, D.C. These include shutting off analog TV broadcasts, revamping telecommunications regulation and, potentially, trying to stop businesses that profit from piracy.

This is actually even more interesting to me. I like how TV watching is now essentially set to become a cable-and-related only service if they shut off analog TV entirely, if I'm reading that right. (Or is there such a thing as digital broadcasts to be picked up by antennae?)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:43 (twenty-one years ago)

OMG, YOU MIGHT BE NEED A LICENSE/FEE ONE DAY JUST TO WATCH TV IN THE U.S., THE HORROR. (Well, if it's the same old shit as today, that is horrific)

donut debonair (donut), Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

This is perhaps my point. ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 7 May 2005 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

if all shows were just the two or three per year that are actually good, and then rebroadcasts of international news in addition, and of course "What's Happening??" reruns (pun intended, of fucking course), I'd buy it.

donut debonair (donut), Saturday, 7 May 2005 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

This is actually even more interesting to me. I like how TV watching is now essentially set to become a cable-and-related only service if they shut off analog TV entirely, if I'm reading that right. (Or is there such a thing as digital broadcasts to be picked up by antennae?)

According to the plan, as part of the shift to HDTV analog broadcasts will be phased out, and the existing over-the-air broadcasters will use new digital spectrums. Viewers have to get an HD-ready TV or some sort of converter technology, but after this expense they will be able to receive HDTV broadcasts for free. The big four U.S. networks are already using their new HD frequencies, at least in the Washington area, and can be picked up by anyone who has an HD-enabled TV. (I get these HDTV transmissions as part of my cable package. My TV is 15 years old and never was that particularly good, so I do not see a significant difference.)

However, the broadcast networks have at least two issues in how the television broadcasting market develops:

1) After HDTV is phased in, broadcasters are expected to return their old analog broadcast frequencies to the Federal government, which plans to sell the rights to them to other commercial interests. However, the broadcasters are dragging their feet because they would like to hold on to the rights to these old frequencies.

2) The major networks all have investments and partnerships and other financial interests in various cable networks. The networks want you to watch their broadcasts, but they also want you to buy cable packages in order to watch ABC Family/Fox News Channel/MSNBC/etc.

j.lu (j.lu), Saturday, 7 May 2005 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks! Hm, let the wars really begin, then...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 7 May 2005 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Myself, if I could get episodes of The Daily Show and South Park (and Chappelle's Show if it does come back for a third season) online, I could probably cancel my cable and not miss it for ages.

j.lu (j.lu), Saturday, 7 May 2005 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, HDTV (at least broadcast HDTV) is doomed.

The broadcast TV licensees will try to turn the HDTV spectrum into free spectrum for them, and try to retain rights on the old analog/NTSC frequencies as well.

Yeah, I hope someone distributes TV online. I dont want cable, but I'd want to buy some shows (and not have to bittorrent them myself)

mikef (mfleming), Saturday, 7 May 2005 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

There was a really good article in National Journal a while back on the Spectrum Wars. According to the article, (1) resulted in firefighters not being able to communicate with the police on Sept. 11, and (2), brought about by the "must carry" provision in the 1992 Cable Act, though repealed in 2001, has lead to consolidation of the media business. When I first read the article, I was really struck by the power of lobbyists, esp. the National Assn. of Broadcasters.

youn, Saturday, 7 May 2005 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

will there be no more free tv for people without hdtvs then? will EVERYONE need to get a new tv? fuck that!!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 7 May 2005 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Or is there such a thing as digital broadcasts to be picked up by antennae?)

Yes, in Uk anyway. I've got satellite for my main tv but for the tv in my bedroom I got a freeview box which plugs into tv, the aerial goes into the box.

Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Saturday, 7 May 2005 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

from the article:

But Ken Ferree, his chief at the FCC's Media Bureau, warned Powell to wait. Ferree was no friend of broadcasters. "They would rather eat their children," he says, "than give up this spectrum." But achieving the transition would be easier if broadcasters had a clear right to put their programs on digital cable systems, he told Powell. It wasn't until 2004 that manufacturers were required to make digital TVs, which is why less than 3 percent of households are capable of receiving such broadcasts. Unless the FCC did something different, Ferree warned, it would take decades before the 85 percent requirement put in place by the Balanced Budget Act was met.

Ferree saw a better model in the experience in Germany. For those citizens of Berlin who didn't subscribe to cable, the city bought and gave converter boxes to each household. That way, any existing television could display digital pictures. In less than a year, Berlin had flipped its television system from analog to digital. The same approach could work in the United States, Ferree said. His idea for the United States was simple: Use cable and satellite television to reach the magic 85 percent threshold. Rather than force cable to carry broadcasters' analog programs, the FCC would require cable to carry broadcasters' digital programs by a set date: December 31, 2008.

Consumers with new televisions would get digital television over the air for free. For those without the expensive sets, cable and satellite systems would translate digital signals back into analog, to be seen on conventional televisions. Consumers without cable or satellite could buy, or get a subsidy to buy, a converter box for less than $50 a set.

youn, Saturday, 7 May 2005 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course, one should also point out that "digital TV", when put in the hands of cable and satellite providers, almost never means improved quality. The large cable carriers (Comcast nee AT&T nee TCI here in the SF Bay Area, for example) long ago decided it was more lucrative provide many channels at high digital compression/poor quality than it was to provide crisper pictures. In many cases, digital cable is worse than the old analog cable. I'd assume this equation will continue with HDTV as well. All that HDTV will change is the connection between your cable/satellite box and your display device. The cable/satellite providers will still provide the same poor quality video (with some exceptions presumably, eg premium sports channels).

A thinktank called the New America Foundation has lots of worthwhile stuff on spectrum politics. It's a classic example of artificial scarcity causing money to be diverted into the hands of rich corperations who lobby for it.

Anyway, the fact that the Broadcast Flag got thrown out is definitely good news.

mikef (mfleming), Sunday, 8 May 2005 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.