[opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?
- From: "Adam Goldberg" <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:03:05 -0400
We don't know whether it was the BF that caused the recording problem, though
it's certainly true that news reports have concluded such. If it was the BF,
and if what John has said about certain PSIP generators, then why haven't we
seen this before?
In any case, I do not believe it matters whether it was the BF, some CGMS-A, or
other settings which caused this (incorrect) behavior.
There is no law, regulation or otherwise which requires or obligates MSFT to
obey "do not record" commands in over-the-air broadcast content. Indeed, there
are significant pressures on broadcasters to not even attempt any such control.
There may even be law or regulation prohibiting (one of the tradeoffs for
using 'our' public property to convey the commercial service).
Furthermore, there is no 1201 violation in stripping whatever caused this
behavior, as it is in no sense an '/effective/ technological protection'. Nor
is CGMS-A information Copyright Management Information viz 17 USC 1202(c), as
any 'do not copy' information is null due to the public right to record (at
least analog, at least for time shifting) see Sony v. Universal.
Finally, the Broadcast Flag was -->>> NEVER INTENDED TO PREVENT RECORDING
<<<<----. Please don’t dispute me here, as to do so, you must have been in the
room. What MSFT products do is either a bug or an intentional behavior, but in
no case is it a reasonable interpretation of the Broadcast Flag.
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John Willkie
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:27 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center
Play By?
really? And, it's the lawyers that you assert have a problem? Not engineers?
(Also, note that you ONCE again referred to an FCC Public Notice [no legal
value, as it says in the heading of each one] to 'buttress' your 'case.'
Is storing media content redistribution
And, you miss the point of the "outside the scope" language. It truly is
outside the scope, and I doubt that ATSC's S8 will ever see the need to clarify
this language.
NBC asserts the rc_descriptor. Microsoft seems to recognize that capturing
protected content is the first step to redistribution. A reasonable position,
and there are other reasonable positions in this matter, but I won't go so far
as to say that yours is reasonable.
Here's the questions (there are no clear answers) that an ATTORNEY would (and,
on my PSIP list, has) asked about this matter [as differentiated from an
engineer who takes pot shots at lawyers.)
"1. What if a company designed a device that simply ignored the 16-bit
flag, i.e., didn't pass it on or react to it. There is no legal mandate
to react to the bits.
...
2. Are you stripping "Copyright Management Information" in violation of
Section 1202(b) of the Copyright Act?
a. Is the flag "terms and conditions for use of the work."
(1202(c)(6))
...
3. Is the flag an essential part of a "Technical Protection Mechanism,"
entitled to protection under Section 1201?" ...
So much more complicated than your analysis, and all based in the Copyright
Act, not jaundiced views of attorneys.
Since the FCC lacks the jurisdiction -- absent action by Congress -- to mandate
what receivers will do with the rc_descriptor, that part is MOOT, and nothing
that the ATSC does will change that; indeed, if the ATSC changes their language
to somehow open this up in the standard, the courts will prevent the FCC from
asserting anything ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. The above questions, however,
are pending and far from moot.
MS's position is reasonable. The fact that NBC didn't know that it was
asserting the rc_descriptor (at least at the stations that I can receive that
NBC controls if not owns outright, and per the article citing an NBC
spokesperson) is close to unreasonable.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 23, 2008 1:42 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center
>Play By?
>
>Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?
>> Posted by Danny O'Brien
>
>> While its customers are still puzzling over why Vista Media
>> Center is suddenly refusing to record over-the-air NBC digital
>> TV, ...
>
>http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/microsofts-masters-whose-rules-does
>-your-media-cen
>
>This is one of those many examples of the lawyers tying themselves up in
>knots.
>
>The original FCC intent was abundantly clear. Unfortunately, when the
>FCC's broadcast flag ruling was thrown out by the courts, they threw out
>the baby with the bathwater. Now the equipment manufactuers can
>interpret the words in any way they bloody well please, or so it seems.
>And yet somehow, the Betamax ruling should apply here too, so I hope the
>courts will step in again.
>
>The situation here is hardly ambiguous.
>
>From the ATSC's point of view, the exact function of this redistribution
>control flag is not specified. Section 6.9.12 of A/65 makes this plain:
>
>"It is out of the scope of this standard to assert how any receiving
>device reacts when the rc_descriptor is present."
>
>But the FCC (and the courts with the Betamax case) were not so
>ambiguous:
>
>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240759A1.doc
>
>-----------------
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:
>November 4, 2003 Michelle Russo 202-418-2358
> David Fiske 202-418-0513
>
>FCC ADOPTS ANTI-PIRACY PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL TV
>
>Broadcast Flag Prevents Mass Internet Distribution; Consumer Copying Not
>Affected; No New Equipment Needed
>
>Washington, D.C. - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
>adopted an anti-piracy mechanism, also known as the "broadcast flag,"
>for digital broadcast television. The goal of today's action is to
>foster the transition to digital TV and forestall potential harm to the
>viability of free, over-the-air broadcasting in the digital age. >>>The
>FCC said that consumers' ability to make digital copies will not be
>affected <<<; the broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass distribution
>over the Internet. Finally, the FCC said implementation of the broadcast
>flag will not require consumers to purchase any new equipment.
>
>...
>------------------
>
>Until someone legally reiterates "that consumers' ability to make
>digital copies will not be affected," it's the wild west out there.
>
>Bert
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>FreeLists.org
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
