Legislating the Broadcast Flag with your Tax Dollars

We won the broadcast flag case, but this thing just won’t die!
You’ve heard that some in Congress want to bless the FCC and
reinstate the broadcast flag, but how could they do such a thing
without even a hearing or without us all knowing?

Public Knowledge has discovered that the
“powers-that-be” may attempt to sneak the broadcast flag
onto a spending bill. That’s right, we’ve heard word
that The Senate Committee on Appropriations (the committee that
decides how your tax dollars are spent, or appropriated) will be
considering the spending bill TOMORROW, and that
broadcast flag may be hitching a ride as an amendment. Without any
debate, the content protection scheme could be added to a bill that
was originally meant to spend money—not protect content.

We need your help right now! If you live in one of the following
states:

MS, AK, PA, NM, MO, KY, MT, AL, NH, UT, ID, TX, OH, KS, CO, WV, HI,
VT, IA, MD, NV, WI, WA, ND, CA, IL, SD, LA

one of your Senators is on the Appropriations Committee, and they
need to hear from you TODAY. Click here to find out
your Senator’s phone number here,
pick up the phone now, and ask your Senator to oppose any broadcast
flag appropriations amendments. The following talking points should
help:

  • There has been No Debate in the Appropriations Committee over
    the Broadcast Flag.
  • No Government Mandated DRM: Content protection is one thing, but
    government mandated content protection that puts the FCC in the role
    of gatekeeper for new technologies is wrong. There are other options
    for protecting content, and the marketplace should sort them out.
  • Broadcast Flag is Not Narrow: There is no “narrow”
    way to implement the broadcast flag scheme because it necessarily
    puts the FCC in the role of gatekeeper, having to approve and
    certify every technology that might carry DTV - computers,
    cellphones, gameboys, etc. As proof of the broad scope of the flag,
    when petitioned to exempt lawful uses of digital television, the FCC
    declined saying “practical and legal difficulties of
    determining which types of broadcast content merit protection from
    indiscriminate redistribution and which do not.”
  • Causes Consumer Confusion and Will Slow DTV Transition: At a
    time when Congress is concerned about making television sets
    obsolete at the end of the DTV transition, the flag would similarly
    render obsolete much consumer equipment because commonly used
    devices will not work together unless all use the same copy
    protection technology. The flag will not help the transition to DTV,
    and indeed might harm it because it makes consumers’ TVs less
    functional than before.
  • Limits Fair Use: As the May 11, 2005 Congressional Research
    Service report noted, the flag will prevent important fair uses,
    like the ability of teachers to engage in distance learning and the
    ability of individuals to email fair use portions of works to
    themselves and others.
  • Not about P2P: The infringement associated with Revenge of the
    Sith and other movies that have appeared online has absolutely
    nothing to do with the flag. Rather, the flag is about protecting
    supposedly “free” over the air digital television. MPAA
    provided no evidence that this content was being pirated nor would
    it be anytime in the near future.
  • Content Already Shown in HD with NO PROTECTION: In contrast to
    the argument that broadcasters won’t put on “high
    value” content, we note that most prime time television is
    already broadcast in HDTV, without protection. Viacom threatened in
    2002 to withhold programming, but did not do so and is now one of
    the leading producers of HDTV.
  • Court Spoke to the Merits: The D.C. Circuit’s broadcast
    flag decision was not merely “procedural.” In ruling
    that the FCC did not have the authority to impose a broadcast flag
    scheme, the Court was ruling on the scheme’s merits - namely,
    that it is so far reaching in its scope that it would permit the
    FCC, in the words of one judge at oral argument, to regulate
    “washing machines.”

Sincerely,
The Public Knowledge Team
June 20, 2005