From: CDT Info
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 19/02/04 20:19
Subject: Policy Post 10.04: CDT Urges FCC to Protect Internet In Defining
DTV Broadcast Flag
CDT POLICY POST Volume 10, Number 4, February 19, 2004
A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online
from
The Center For Democracy and Technology
(1) CDT Urges FCC to Protect Internet In Defining DTV Broadcast Flag
(2) CDT Comments Focus on Potential Impacts of the Flag Rule on the
Internet and Innovation Online
(3) CDT Argues for Narrow, Objective Approval Process for New
Technologies, with Regular Oversight
(4) CDT Warns Flag Should Not be Used as a Precedent for Further
Regulation
---------------------------------------
(1) CDT Urges FCC to Protect Internet In Defining DTV Broadcast Flag
CDT submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission on
January 13 in the latest round of proceedings regarding the
copy-protection of digital TV (DTV) broadcasts via a mechanism called
the "broadcast flag." The FCC has mandated that, starting in July
2005, all equipment capable of receiving DTV broadcasts must include
federally approved content protection technologies. The FCC is now
addressing a range of critical questions surrounding the
implementation of the flag scheme. These issues include the procedure
for approving protection technologies and questions about how to make
the requirements of the rules compatible with increasingly popular
software-based DTV applications and networkable consumer electronics
devices.
CDT is working to find pragmatic solutions that balance the interests
of Internet users with the intellectual property rights of content
creators. Given the importance of the Internet to democratic values,
CDT urged the Commission to make sure the flag rule did not "leave
out the Internet" or overly burden the free flow of information
online. CDT urged the Commission to ensure that users are able to
make reasonable uses of content and exchange material over the
Internet, so long as they do not engage in massive copying.
Specifically, CDT called on the FCC to adopt objective functional
criteria for approving copy protection technologies and to develop a
transparent and publicly accountable process for applying those
criteria based on the narrow goal that the Commission has articulated
for the flag regulations -- preventing "indiscriminate
redistribution" of copyrighted content online. CDT also urged that
the Commission make clear that the rulemaking is not a precedent for
the FCC to take a broader role in the regulation of consumer
technologies.
* CDT's comments on the broadcast flag are at
http://www.cdt.org/copyright/20040213flagcomments.pdf
* CDT's "Public Interest Primer" on the Broadcast Flag is at
http://www.cdt.org/copyright/031216broadcastflag.pdf
* The FCC's broadcast flag ruling is at
http://www.cdt.org/copyright/031104fcc.pdf
---------------------------------------
2) CDT Comments Focus on Potential Impacts of the Flag Rule on the
Internet and Innovation Online
The broadcast flag regulations represent a specific response to some
of the considerable challenges posed for copyright holders by the
increasing importance of computers and networks in emerging digital
media. However, these technologies also hold tremendous potential to
foster expression and civic discourse, and CDT argued that the
Commission must be wary of imposing undue burdens on their
development and use.
While the FCC indicated in its earlier ruling that it intended for
the flag regulations to "facilitate innovative consumer uses and
practices, including use of the Internet as a secure means of
transmission," (FCC Report and Order, November 4, 2003) some
commenters suggested tightening the flag rule in ways that would
severely limit the uses consumers can make of digital broadcast
content online.
CDT and others argued, instead, for an implementation of the rule
that focuses on the Commission's narrow expressed goal of frustrating
mass, "indiscriminate redistribution" online, without obstructing
secure private transmission over the Internet or other uses of
broadcast content on personal computers and digital networks. Other
groups that argued for a similar, narrowly tailored, implementation
of the flag regulations include the Business Software Alliance, the
Computer Systems Policy Project, Verizon, Phillips Electronics, and
consumer groups Public Knowledge and Consumer's Union.
---------------------------------------
(3) CDT Argues for Narrow, Objective Approval Process for New
Technologies, with Regular Oversight
CDT said in its comments that continued innovation and free
expression on the Internet is best protected by the development of a
robust marketplace in content protection technologies. Such a
marketplace ensures that consumers have real choices among rights
protection options and that developers have strong incentives to find
ways to meet consumer demands for reasonable and innovative uses of
content while maintaining appropriate protections for copyrighted
works.
CDT suggested several specific measures to ensure that the
Commission's approval process for new technologies does not create
unnecessary barriers for technology developers:
* adopting objective functional criteria for approving technologies,
based on the narrow goal of preventing indiscriminate redistribution
online;
* adopting a lightweight self-certification process by which
technology developers can assert that they have met these criteria;
* adopting a flexible, predictable, transparent, and publicly
accountable process for rapid resolution by the Commission of
challenges to such self-certifications;
* establishing an independent oversight board to periodically
reexamine the flag rules' impacts on interoperability of new
compliant technology with legacy devices, reasonable consumer
expectations, and consumers' ability to access information online;
* refraining from any attempt to exhaustively define the realm of
permitted uses and thereby ruling out new and innovative uses that
may arise.
---------------------------------------
4) CDT Warns Flag Should Not be Used as a Precedent for Further
Regulation
CDT also argued in its comments that the Commission must make it
clear that the flag cannot be viewed as a precedent for broader
regulation of technology. The specific rationale and processes put in
place to deal with the special case of digital broadcast content
protection are not sufficient to justify broad re-architecting of all
digital technology. For example, CDT is concerned with the
potentially sweeping ramifications of the Commission's stated
intention to consider mandated protection measures for analog
outputs. Most televisions, VCRs, and DVD players now in consumer's
homes are connected through analog outputs and inputs. To be
effective, a technological protection measure for these analog
signals would require broad regulation of devices containing
analog-to-digital converters, including personal computers and many
consumer electronics devices.
---------------------------------------
Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found
at http://www.cdt.org/ .
This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_10.04.shtml .
Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of [log in to unmask]
Policy Post 10.04 Copyright 2004 Center for Democracy and Technology
_______________________________________________
http://www.cdt.org/mailman/listinfo/policy-posts
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
