FCC "broadcast flag" approved [LWN.net]

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has approved the "broadcast flag" scheme put forth by the MPAA and its associates. Details can be found on the FCC site in the form of a news release and the actual order - both in PDF format.

Why do we need a digital broadcast flag? From the order:

In this report and order, we conclude that the potential threat of mass indiscriminate redistribution will deter content owners from making high value digital content available through broadcasting outlets absent some content protection mechanism. Although the threat of widespread indiscriminate retransmission of high value digital broadcast content is not imminent, it is forthcoming and preemptive action is needed to forestall any potential harm to the viability of over-the-air television.

So "mass indiscriminate redistribution" is not a problem now, but preemptive action is the way of things in the US these days, so we have to mandate copy protection mechanisms for transmissions on our public spectrum.

The actual broadcast flag rule, as found in page 40 of the order document, states that a digital TV demodulator cannot send unprotected content to any output, except in a set of specific cases:

Analog output continues to be allowed.
Specific digital output formats which much maintain the presence of the broadcast flag.
Digital outputs are allowed if they are protected by an "Authorized Digital Output Protection Technology." Encrypted output to devices which also follow the broadcast flag rules is allowed as well.
Output to a recording device is allowed - but, of course, that device, too, must implement an "Authorized Recording Method."
Digital output from computers is allowed as long as the resolution of the image is reduced to no more than 350,000 pixels per frame.

The FCC repeatedly asserts that home recording will not be affected by the broadcast flag. The rules, however, do place significant constraints on digital recordings. In particular, the resulting recording cannot be transferable to another device, or the recorder must be explicitly "authorized" by the FCC. The MPAA had pushed hard for the "authorization" mechanism to require, among other things, approval by at least two "major studios," but the FCC, at least didn't buy that. Instead, there will be an involved bureaucratic process where manufacturers of recorders have to show the FCC how their product will implement copy protection schemes.

Much debate evidently went into the specification of "robustness rules." The MPAA wanted an extensive set of regulations on things like "how content may be transmitted on data paths within Demodulator Products" and such, an an effort to make circumvention as difficult as possible. The FCC, however, concluded that a level of robustness sufficient to defeat an "ordinary user" would be enough. Interestingly, the FCC uses the CSS scheme used on DVDs as an example:

Although the CSS copy protection system for DVDs has been "hacked" and circumvention software is available on the Internet, DVDs remain a viable distribution platform for content owners. The CSS content protection system serves as an adequate "speed bump" for most consumers, allowing the continued flow of content to the DVD platform.

One might have just as easily concluded that a copy protection (and "region coding" price support) scheme like CSS was unnecessary in the first place, but the FCC wasn't willing to go there.

The resulting "robustness requirements" say that the broadcast flag scheme must be implemented in products in a way that can't be defeated or circumvented by "an ordinary user using generally-available tools or equipment." Examples of such tools, as listed in the regulation, include screwdrivers, jumpers, clips, soldiering irons, EEPROM writers, debuggers, and decompilers.

This rule will have an obvious effect on free software - under the broadcast flag provisions, there simply cannot be a free TV demodulator system. Even if somebody wrote a free system which implemented the broadcast flag restrictions, a source-available system clearly would not meet the "robustness requirements." The FCC report does, at least, note this problem:

In response to our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EFF questioned the impact of a flag based regime on innovations in software demodulators and other DTV open source software applications... We seek further comment on the interplay between a flag redistribution control system and the development of open source software applications, including software demodulators, for digital broadcast television.

Given that the FCC seeks further comments, the free software community would be well advised to provide them with those comments. The Electronic comment filing system can be used for this purpose (the docket number for the report is 02-230). The chances of getting any sort of free software exemption to the broadcast flag requirements appear slim, however. The MPAA might not have gotten everything it wanted out of the FCC - thanks to the efforts of the EFF and many others - but that organization remains the driving force behind the FCC's rulemaking.

(Log in to post comments)

FCC "broadcast flag" approved

Posted Nov 6, 2003 23:28 UTC (Thu) by cross (guest, #13601) [Link]

> Redisitribution? We are talking about signals that are sent over the air
> waves which the broadcaster wants to reach the widest possible audience.

And which with public has already paid for to the tune of hundreds of dollars per household per year in the form of a hidden sales tax levied by media corporations through advertising, the price of which is added to the cost of living of every consumer regardless of whether they even own a television.

Figures for the United States are very hard to come by, but for the UK the terrestrial commercial channels raise over £150 nett* per household per year through advertising. Contrast this with £116 for the Licence Fee which funds the BBC. The difference is that, apart from being cheaper, all BBC content has been paid for explicitly by the public and is therefore the property of the public, freely accessible and redistributable by the public.

This is alluded to briefly in a piece Lawrence Lessig wrote recently for the Financial Times.

Lawrence Lessig: The BBC's lessons for America
http://news.ft.com/servlet/...

The broadcast flag is intended to ensure that you cannot treat the output of the commercial broadcasters in the same way. Despite the public having paid even more for it, it remains for a century the private property of those same corporations who got the money to produce it largely through a form of unacountable and well hidden private taxation.

This is an issue which I believe The Founders understood well when they wrote the copyright clause into the constitution. Once "we the people" have paid for the production of our culture, it is rightfully the property of the people and corporations have no right to perpetual control over our access and use of it.

It might well be that in the Corporate Age our best guarantee of maintaining some element of freedom over the production, access and control over our culture is to have our own corporation. The only way that can reasonably work is if the cost is shared over everyone, thus giving everyone joint ownership and access to the work produced. Displacing taxation into corporate hands is not the answer. Taxation, if it is to be levied at all should be explicit, clear, and subject to oversight by "We the People".

* i.e. the cost to consumers is considerably higher once gross figures, the costs added by advertisers and advertising agencies are factored in. Sources: ITC annual report 2003 (http://www.itc.org.uk) for TV income, UK Census 2001 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk) for population figures.

FCC jurisdiction

Posted Nov 5, 2003 19:15 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

That's one thing I didn't get into the article; there appears to be a certain amount of uncertainty within the FCC itself with regard to whether it has the authority to make this particular rule. I wouldn't be surprised to see challenges on that front.

FCC "broadcast flag" approved

Posted Nov 5, 2003 19:17 UTC (Wed) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link]

They most definately can use the DMCA to stifle
devices which circumvent the stupid little flag.

The DMCA specifically prohibits devices whose
primary purpose is circumventing protection of
copyrighted material.

The broadcasts are copyrighted material, the flag
even though it is silly is a "technological measure
to protect copyrighted material".

The open nature format will prevent people from
invoking the DMCA to stifle research into
circumvention. So the technical elite will be
able to get around the "speed bump".

FCC "broadcast flag" approved

Posted Nov 5, 2003 19:22 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

I believe it has to be more than simply a flag. Something like encryption, such as CSS (lame as it is).

FCC "broadcast flag" approved

Posted Nov 5, 2003 19:45 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I don't think so. It has to be an effective control. The FCC requires
that it can not be circumented easily by an end user. That sounds likely
to invoke the DMCA.

Land of the Free?

Posted Nov 6, 2003 0:54 UTC (Thu) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link]

This is not an anti-US rant (just disclaiming in case I get arrested)

Everywhere I look, the "Land of the Free" seems to become less so every day - the single highest prison population in the world (ironic, isn't it) and a serious boatload of stupid laws and rules designed to make the rich richer faster, while keeping the "normal" people "normal". Broadcast flag? huh? how stupid is is that? DMCA? that is like "I don't care what you are up to but I don't like it, go to jail" card. With all the silly restrictions and such, I fail to see how you are significantly Free-er then anyone else.....

FCC's powers over receivers

Posted Nov 8, 2003 4:56 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I'm no expert on the laws that empower the FCC, but I know the FCC has exercised control over receivers in the past. When the number of TV channels has expanded, the FCC has required all TV receivers to tune them all in. The FCC is requiring all TVs to get HDTV soon.

Congress has given the FCC broad powers to ensure we as a society get the most out of the airwaves. Notice that in the case of the broadcast flag, the FCC says the purpose is that it believes more stuff will be broadcast with the broadcast flag restrictions in place than without them. More stuff broadcast is what we all want.

FCC "broadcast flag" approved

Posted Nov 6, 2003 4:09 UTC (Thu) by zone (guest, #3633) [Link]

Granted, I'm not intimately familiar with the technical details of this, but if the "broadcast flag" is really just that, a single flag, then there is serious bias for a particular set of copyright licenses. An "OK TO COPY" vs. "NOT OK TO COPY" flag in the broadcast signal will only help to protect (even if you buy the MPAA's "protection" line) those works that completely disallow outside use of the material.

A producer of a football game, for example, may wish to restrict copying of the game while it is in progress and for 48 hours afterwards, in order to give the network and it's news affiliates the chance for exclusive broadcast and reporting. After the 48 hours, the producer may wish for the game to be available for rebroadcast or unlimited copying. How are their rights protected by this broadcast flag? They're not. They will either have to completely restrict copying, or completely allow copying.

If this is indeed the only option available to content producers, the FCC is, in my opinion, setting a very bad precedent in favor of ultra-restrictive copyright licenses. Hopefully someone who knows more of the details can reassure me that there is an expiration field somewhere in the broadcast, or something other than an all-or-nothing flag.