Dianne Feinstein Doesn’t Get It

Dianne Feinstein on the Broadcast Flag: Idiot or liar? | This is the response to her constituents in California in regards to the Broadcast Flag.


 


Thank you for writing to me about the digital broadcast flag. I appreciate hearing from you.


 


I feel strongly that we must prevent the theft of copyrighted works, and that includes digital television (DTV) programming. As we move forward in the digital age, it is increasingly easy for unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed. Over-the-air digital content is the easiest to pirate.


 


As we contemplate the use of new technologies to protect copyrighted works, we must pay careful attention to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests. It is important to allow for the continued fair use of copyrighted material, even while we seek to stop unauthorized reproductions from being illegally distributed outside the home and over the Internet.


 


Again, thank you for writing. Please know that as the Senate considers legislation of the broadcast flag, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.


 


You can seek (and succeed) in stopping piracy without killing our fair use, and that’s the only thing the BS (I mean, BF) does.  If you live in California (Thomas), I would do my best to ensure that this is Dianne Feinstein last term as your senator.


 


Note: Titled Edited.  Still waiting for anyone to be able to explain how the BF can be enabled and still allow for “fair use”

9 thoughts on “Dianne Feinstein Doesn’t Get It

  1. I don’t know much about Feinstein and I agree her response leaves a lot to be desired, but I just wanted to point out that Cory Doctorow is also an idiot (and sadly he broadcasts his mental incompetence at least once a week in his posts).

    To wit,

    <quote>

    As we move forward in the digital age, it is increasingly easy for unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed.

    Lie: Steps needed to put analog-broadcast video on your computer: 1. Install capture card; 2. Press record. Steps needed to put digital-broadcast video on your computer: 1. Install capture card; 2. Press record.

    </quote>

    Cory’s critique of this paragraph makes the point that using a digital capture card and a digital computer it is quite easy to violate a) (some) copyrighted material in digital form AND ALSO b) (some) copyrighted material in other forms.

    That is just flat out dumb and either doesn’t help or actually undermines the point he seems to be trying to make.

    Sorry for the outburst but I’m continually amazed that such an obviously silly, superficial thinker represents EFF interests in Europe. And makes speaches at MacHack. etc etc

  2. it is you who are the moron. Cory is contradicting the claim that piracy becomes easier as "we move forward in the digital age". His argument is perfectly sound – it is no easier or harder to pirate digital broadcasts than analogue ones.

  3. Here’s the thing, there has to be something in place to protect the holder of the copyright. However, if I were to produce a television show, movie, song, etc. I would view the digital distribution of content as a way to get my product out to more consumers. Treating every customer as a potential criminal is the wrong strategy.

    In the end, the big media companies are dying and they know it. Small outfits that put their content right on the net for all to view/use is the future. The next step will be big media trying to prevent the little guy from giving stuff away.

  4. If anything, what this whole discussion underlines is the overwhelming amount of misinformation and blatant political posturing by Hollywood lobbyists. I am all for fairness, but this issue isn’t designed to be fair. It’s designed to, once again, take freedoms away from Americans.

    We lose so many freedoms and more legislation is exactly what we don’t need. LAWS stymie judgement and in this particular case, judging what the usage is versus intent is whats at heart here.

    They don’t want you to have judgement in these matters. That is why we must rally against these type of laws.

    JMM

  5. Folks,

    could we please have a minimum level of maturity in such a discussion? If Ms. Feinstein is priotizing the interests of movie studios over those of consumers, that’s an explicit political decision. It maybe a wrong one, but that still doesn’t make her an idiot or a moron.

    Lets face it: lots of what she is saying is true. There are different interests colliding here. An excellent politician would find a win-win way out of such a situation. A good politician would find a compromise that either side can live with. And a bad politician would sell out to one side. Either way, Ms. Feinstein is right on one count: in the end, the challenge is "to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests". It is more what she is not writing about that concerns me (what are legitimate consumer interests?, when does "theft" of intellectual property occur?, for example).

    We are not helping our cause by reverting to 3rd grade lingo anytime a decision seemingly doesn’t go our way. We have to work with politicians like Ms. Feinstein, and others in the relevant Senate committees, to ensure that the notion of "theft" of intellectual property actually gets a realistic definition (which it does not have at the moment), and that "consumer interests" are properly codified.

    Calling people silly names won’t help that a bit.

  6. hubertk: Are you saying you think it’s fair for you _not_ to be able to record a show on a PVR so you can watch it later? Remembering that this doesn’t do anything for protecting content, as even with the BF flag enabled, I can still pipe it into a computer, TiVo, ReplyTV, PVR, and distribute it on the net?

    —–

    Lots of what she is saying is not true, it fact all of it.

    The BF doesn’t "prevent the theft of copyrighted works". I can still get the program and send it out to anyone!!

    The BF doesn’t make it any harder to make "unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to be made and illegally distributed"

    What part of the BF allows for "pay(ing) careful attention to ensure that a balance is struck between competitive protections and individual consumer interests"? Not a single part of it.

    She said "It is important to allow for the continued fair use of copyrighted material", but what part of the BF allows for any fair use at all? Sayin that I can’t make a single recording on a TiVo, DVD Recorder, or other PVR? How is that consider "fair use"?

    In fact, what does she consider "fair use"? The BF kills fair use, and she is an idiot for trying to prove that it doesn’t.

    If anyone can prove that the BF (as the idea stands today) can allow fair use, please explain it to me (and everyone else)

    Asking for a system that allows for fair use and protects the content is what both a "excellent politician" and "good politician" would do.

  7. No. I’m saying calling someone an "idiot" simply because you disagree with her is childish.

    And since I didn’t get any reply from my congressmen (who I wrote to), I have a certain appreciation for a politician who at least replies to her constituents.

Leave a Reply to hubertk Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *