The House Judiciary Committee today introduced a bill (HR 4569) to close the analog hole.
The government is proposing that devices (consumer electronics, computers, software) manufactured after a certain date respond to a copy-protection signal or watermark in a digital video stream, and pass along that signal when converting the video to analog. The same goes for analog video streams, to pass on the protection to the digital video outputs.
The technology Congress is proposing (VEIL) is derived from one that originated with assorted interactive Batman toys that allowed the toys to respond to Batman television shows or videos. How cool--at least for toys.
There are some details in the legislation that have yet to be fully understood, concerning protection of content that is supported by business models ( prerecorded media, video on demand, pay-per-view, subscription-on-demand) and "undefined" business models. And much of the process has to be approved, not by the FCC, but by the Patent and Trademark Office. Why the USPTO? Not because they're an "expert agency" like the FCC, but because the bill was introduced in the Judiciary Committee, which doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction over the FCC.
Perhaps needless to say, Public Knowledge is against government mandated DRM and other similar tech mandates.Read More
Plainly, the media companies are engaged in an all-out attack on the principle of "fair use."
We see it all over the place: copy protected CDs that you can't put on your iPod; copy protected downloaded music that you can't put on a competing player; excerpts can't be made of access controlled DVDs.
The one that PK has fought the hardest--government mandated DRM that would touch every device in your home even capable of playing digital video--the Broadcast Flag. At a recent hearing, when asked why Congress couldn't exempt broadcast news (for which most copying would clearly fall under fair use) and works in the public domain, the content companies had no response.
If they actually spoke their mind, their answer would be that these grand debates have zero to do with piracy. Instead, it's actually about control--not just over everything they conceive, but what consumers can do with it after legally obtaining it, and what technological innovators can do with it to make it more useful.
Thankfully, that's not how copyright works, and we work every day to ensure it.Read More
You hear and read it all the time if you watch PBS, listen to NPR or podcasts, and even occasionally on a blog: "To keep this great content available, we need your support." It's true for us in the public interest realm, as well. We need your support to keep fighting for your rights, and every little bit helps.
And this isn't something for nothing. We're a results oriented group here at PK, so we made note of how we contributed and impacted the copyright and broadband debate in 2005.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program...Read More
I had been wanting to remark on a specific fair use study(beware of PDF) earlier last week, but never got around to it. Thankfully, Tim Lee on has a to the point post on the Technology Liberation Front.
One more: The Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School just put out their study entitled, "Will Fair Use Survive?". You can find the full PDF here. Of course, feel free to quote it, make limited copies or excerpts of it to criticize and discuss it, and make personal, non-commercial copies of it--it's your right!Read More
In case you haven't heard, the Big Easy is putting up a free municipal WiFi network. If you haven't read it yet, check out the great breakdown on an Engadget comment post from the Chris Drake, with the New Orleans' Mayor's office. Man, the places you'll find sources of information these days!
With donations of equipment and engineering manpower from Intel, Tropos (who actually helped out with DC's OpenPark), Pronto, and Motorola, combined with Federal funds from FEMA, the network is being setup to not only spur commerce, but also provide for city services like EMS, police and fire departments, as well.
We think Muni-WiFi can be a great development for local communities and hopefully will provide the citizens of New Orleans with some low cost universal telecommunications infrastructure. Find out about how you can promote the same in your community here.Read More
In case you haven't heard, TiVo recently said that it would be making the content that its users record available to Apple iPods and Sony PSPs. Pretty cool! It's not exactly anything new--especially since it's been a basic feature of Windows Media Center, ReplayTV since their inception, and more recently Dishnetwork's "pocketdish" devices. Regardless, the ability to watch the content that you've otherwise legally obtained on a portable device is a welcome future upgrade.
So what's with NBC? In a recent Variety article, they said:
"TiVo appears to be acting unilaterally, disregarding established rights of content owners to participate in decisions regarding the distribution and exploitation of their content. This unilateral action creates the risk of legal conflict instead of contributing to the constructive exploitation of digital technology that can rapidly provide new and exciting experiences for the consumer."
Quite a reaction! Since when do copyright owners have the right to tell me when and where I watch the TV I've recorded? I don't think it's been since the Sony Betamax case that we've fought over this issue. Are we really calling personal copying to a portable device "distribution?" If so, doesn't the same go for copying CDs to iPods, or any of the other TV recording systems I referenced above?
Why not look at it as a marketing opportunity, as Warner Bros. reportedly did:
"In addition to focusing on the legal issues, it's also important to focus on the fact that consumers are saying this is the kind of thing they want. We're excited about the fact that people are buying portable devices and are looking for video content on them. It's potentially a huge market for us."
How refreshing! Considering what consumers want. Of course, this isn't the first we've heard of this kind of pro-consumer attitude in recent weeks.
As far as I know, NBC hasn't taken any action against TiVo, and it's possible that the above statement was just the rhetoric of an uninformed individual. Just the same, those statements don't help policy makers form better conclusions.Read More
Well, there's been a brief hiatus on the Policy Blog, and that's because we've actually been pretty busy at PK. Here's a quick rundown of what we've been up to:
Testifying on the Broadcast Flag: Gigi's first hearing in November was on the broadcast flag, HD-radio protection, and closing the analog hole. Read more about the hearing here, our press release here, and Gigi's testimony here.
Telecom Rewrite process: I've told you about our Open Broadband white paper previously. We've been working with others to voice concern about issues like net neutrality in the rewrite of the '96 Telecommunications Act. There was a House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing on Nov. 9, and this is what we had to say about the hearing and the latest staff draft.
DOJ Copyright Proposals: Seemingly out of the blue, the Department of Justice released its recommendations on how copyright law could be "improved" to aid their enforcement efforts. While PK believes in strong copyright enforcement, we disagree with the suggested changes by the DOJ. Here's what we had to say about it.
Testifying on Fair Use: Gigi's second hearing of November was on the fair use doctrine of copyright law. The hearing was held in the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Gigi's oral and written testimony are on our website, and you can view the webcast from the subcommittee's website.
Follow-up Letter: As a follow-up to the fair use hearing, Chairman Stearns asked us to provide him with list of examples of consumer uses that are prohibited by the DMCA. We sent him that letter on Nov. 21, providing examples from Gigi's testimony and some important others.
Whew, quite a month! Rest assured, new posts are coming!Read More
What a cool new device Apple has made us all lust over! Again! Not only is it thinner than the previous generation of iPods, it sports a wider color screen capable of playing back video. And you can download select TV shows from the iTunes Music Store. Now on the way to work, I can watch Lost and find all the clues that I’ve missed the night before.
Of course, the video playback is not limited to the TV shows, there are pleanty of video podcasts (FYI: that’s an iTunes link) for you to select from—I usually watch Rocketboom while eating lunch at my desk. And then there’s all the videos I already own.
I have a few movies on VHS that I could do a an “A-to-D” conversion on—digitally record to my computer using an EyeTV or just my regular firewire camcorder as a pass-thru. It’d take some time, but it could be done.
And of course, my DVD collection. Since those are just discs with digital video files on them. It should be easy enough to down-convert them on my computer to the proper resolution for the iPod. And it is pretty easy. Sheesh, it only took two days for a tutorial to be put on a very popular blog.
But, unlike all the video content (both analog and digital) listed before, it’s illegal to digitally copy this DVD video content to your new iPod. We all know why. Sure, you could copy the video from the analog out, then copy it back digitally, then down-rez it. A “D-to-A-to-D” conversion, if you will.
Does anyone else think this is absurd? You own the content. You own the device. And you’re not doing anything illegal with the content under traditional copyright law.
Thankfully, some other folks do to. One in particular is U.S. Representative Rick Boucher, of Virginia. This is not hot news, but he’s got a bill in Congress that essentially says if you’re not doing it for otherwise infringing purposes, it’s not illegal to conduct fair use.
If it were to pass, you wouldn’t be breaking the law while watching your DVDs on your iPod, on the way to work. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?Read More
In case you haven’t noticed, PK posted an action alert on the broadcast flag. You might be asking yourself, “Self, what new legislation has been introduced on the broadcast flag to warrant me calling my legislator to tell him or her about the broadcast flag?”
Good question! You’re right, there hasn’t been a bill introduced with the broadcast flag on it. Yet. And that’s what it’s really about. We work in Washington, DC. Part of our job is keeping our ear to the ground and looking for the writing on the wall.
Well, we heard what was going on a few months ago in the Appropriations Committee, alerted you, and you called in droves. And guess what? The broadcast flag didn’t make it onto a spending bill. Nice job!
The reasons for some of the pre-emptive action alerts are manyfold. Here are just a few reasons:
To educate legislators on the specific issue.
To let them know that there may be other angles to this issue, and that the issue is potentially controversial.
To make them aware that a part of their constituency cares enough to write them a letter.
As for the current broadcast flag status, the current potential vehicle is the DTV transition bill. In the Senate, we’ve heard that there will be two bills: A spectrum / budget oriented one (less controversial) and a policy oriented one (more controversial). The policy DTV bill will probably contain issues like DTV converter box subsidy language, broadcast flag language, HD-radio protection, etc.
Apparently MPAA and RIAA have teamed up. They are rumored to be pushing their “flags” together, and wanting broad FCC authority for both. By broad, we mean something broader than “The FCC has the authority to reinstate the broadcast flag.”
So, that’s the low-down and why we ask you to contact your legislators.Read More
What’s HD-radio protection? Well, that’s the other part of the rumors that we’re hearing. A while ago, the RIAA asked the FCC to have a proceeding on protecting the new high definition digital radio format, soon to be rolled out. This new format not only sends higher-quality sound, but also sends metadata, or song info, for what’s currently playing on the radio. The RIAA is claiming that consumers will buy these HD-radio receivers, connect them to their computers, using the metadata set them up to record complete albums of artists, and then send these “high quality recordings” onto the Internet. This boils down to: “If you don’t cripple this new technology, people will use it to infringe.”
I will ignore the argument made that instead of allowing consumers to record off the radio, they want to have a “buy button” on every radio.
Of course, there are lots of holes that can be poked into the RIAA’s theory:
When was the last time you heard a radio station actually play multiple tracks of an artist’s album? It just doesn’t happen.
There is currently more variety of music traded over the Internet than the legitimate online music services can even legally license. If someone was already planning to infringe by recording off the radio and sharing the songs on the Internet, why would anyone bother to pay the money to setup this elaborate recording system, when they could likely find and download it over the Internet?
The FCC essentially told the RIAA, “no.” So they’ve gone to Congress to tell the FCC to do it.
What is “it?” Good question. One of the latest RIAA draft language requires broadcasters to ” encrypt the transmission of copyrighted material” and make sure that devices are compliant. Think of any potential problems with that? Under the DMCA, is encryption an access or copy control? What if I want to record a talk radio program and save it to my iPod? What if there’s a news story that I want to send to friend? Fair uses with digital radio are probably out the window—not because the technology disallows it, but because the law does.Read More