DOCSLIB.ORG

Putting Analog Sunset in Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Putting Analog Sunset in Perspective PUTTING ANALOG SUNSET IN PERSPECTIVE By: Joseph D. Cornwall, CTS-D Technology Evangelist—Lastar, Inc. (C2G, Quiktron) ABSTRACT TaBLE OF CONTENTS This paper explores the recent evolution of Audio Visual (A/V) Abstract .................................1 technology from an analog to a digital format, and discusses Introduction ..............................1 the effects of the convergence of A/V and Information Analog Sunset and Broadcast ..................2 Technology (IT) disciplines. Analog A/V infrastructure will Analog Sunset and Prerecorded Media ...........2 lose relevance as the benefits of digital connectivity gain Digital Rights Management and Content: ..........3 greater market importance. For professionals involved in the High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection: ........3 purchase, use, specification, or integration of media access LVDS and DisplayPort .......................4 systems it is important to be aware of how, when, and why The Not-So-Slow Death of Analog Connectivity ......4 our media technology is evolving and what we must anticipate Summary ................................5 to ensure maximum utility and performance from projects. References ...............................5 INTRODUCTION What is analog sunset? It’s a question that’s been very poorly answered by our industry, yet it’s at the very core of the collision between both A/V and IT technology disciplines. It’s rare to see a frank and accurate discussion of what analog sunset means, how it is progressing, where it started, where it is going, or what its logical outcome is going to be. And yet we need to be able to have this conversation with our customers, stakeholders, project end-users, architects, design consultants, and professional integration partners if we are to ensure the utility and value of a project. This paper will attempt to dispel some of the myths surrounding our global march towards an all-digital media experience and the continuing convergence of information technology, A/V technology, and consumer versus commercial A/V applications. Analog sunset, although seldom acknowledged as such, is the inevitable product of a field of study called “information theory.” Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, bioinformatics, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by a mathematician, electronic engineer and cryptographer Claude Shannon, and was first known as “communication theory.” In 1949 Shannon published a paper titled A Mathematical Theory of Communication where-in he focused on the best method to encode information for transmission.[1] In just over a half century, Shannon’s work has become the foundation of the digital revolution and any device containing a microprocessor can claim his work as its notional genesis. Shannon’s work to find the fundamental limits of signal processing operations, such as compressing, storing and communicating data, shone a light on a line of thinking that was further expanded by H. Marshall McLuhan, who is best known for coining the phrase “the medium is the message.” [2] McLuhan’s great insight was that the medium used to deliver content can affect society as much as the content itself. Put another way, the storage and transportation format (the medium, and in the case of this paper that means digital video and audio) has a profound effect on the creation, application, utilization, and meaning of the actual content. 3555 Kettering Blvd. | Moraine OH | 45439 | www.c2g.com | 800.287.2843 00000_3.13_PDF | © 2013 Lastar Inc. Bits are fungible. By this we mean that a device doesn’t care if the 1s and 0s that it stores and manipulates are bytes that describe an executable program, an Excel spreadsheet, a PowerPoint presentation, a piece of music, or video content. To the machine they are all the same—just pulses of data. It is when that data represents a copyrighted work that the fun begins. ANALOG SUNSET AND BROADCAST Analog sunset is a global change. It describes the ordered transition from analog over-the-air television broadcasting (and that ultimately includes both CATV cable television and satellite television) we’ve enjoyed since its adoption by the NTSC in 1948 to a new digital system.[3] It is sometimes referred to as digital switchover or analog switch-off. Analog sunset began in 2006 with the Netherlands and moved to Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland in 2007. In 2009 the United States began its transition to a digital broadcast infrastructure [4], followed by Denmark, Germany, Norway, Canada, Italy, Israel, and nearly every other country one can name. The full transition to a global standard of digital broadcast is expected to continue until sometime in 2024. [5] Digital broadcasting offers many advantages over its analog predecessor. Image resolution and color quality can be precisely specified, resulting in a more controlled and higher quality viewing experience. More information can be carried by a digital broadcast, including detailed guides and menus, additional soundtracks, 3D content, and countless other capabilities. An even greater benefit is efficiency; digital broadcasts offer more of everything while demanding less RF spectrum than earlier analog systems. It should be clear at this point that broadcast video is in the process of migrating towards an all-digital environment and analog capabilities will be eliminated at a global level. Whether over-the-air, CATV or SATV, television has become a digital medium. ANALOG SUNSET AND PRERECORDED MEDIA At the end of 2010 another aspect of analog sunset appeared, as did another application of the term. Digital content isn’t copied, it is cloned. A digital copy is a perfect copy, so systems that protect the intellectual property rights of the content creators from unauthorized duplication and distribution are necessary. On January 1, 2011, only Blu-ray DVD players that limited their high definition video output to a digital High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) connection could be sold in the United States. Players sold before that date would have their analog component video connections rendered inoperable for high definition content through the use of a digital “Image Constraint Token” (ICT) embedded in copyrighted material. A digital constraint token allows the source device to scale the image quality down to a lowest common level, and in the case of digital video that’s 480i. This has also been referred to as analog sunset. By 2013, “Digital-Only Tokens” (DOT) that will completely eliminate analog output capability at any resolution during playback of copyright-protected digital high definition material will be in use. If a system uses a DOT, the output will be blanked so long as the demand for copyright protection via HDCP is in place and the system senses a non-HDCP compliant condition. This use of ICT and DOT technology is defined in an international, cross-industry set of rules known as the Advanced Access Content System (AACS). Created by a consortium of companies including IBM, Intel, Panasonic, Sony, Disney, Warner Brothers, Microsoft and others, AACS is a specification for managing content stored on prerecorded and recorded optical media and is designed for use with PCs and CE devices. [6] We now see that, although not technically part of digital switchover as seen from a broadcast point-of-view, prerecorded media has similarly migrated towards an all-digital environment where analog connectivity can be precluded by the technology itself. Prerecorded video content has become a digital medium. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT AND CONTENT If content accessed from a prerecorded source must be protected from illicit copying, what about content that is broadcast or downloaded? Isn’t a clone/copy of a high definition broadcast functionally equivalent to a recording of the same content from an optical disc? The answer is obvious, and this is where the concept of analog sunset begins to bend back on itself and becomes the larger issue we must address today. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made provisions for a digital broadcast flag, which is a digital “lock” designed to control access to content.[7] In “Digital Broadcast Television Redistribution Control” the FCC ruled that “no party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements,” and that hardware must implement functionality to “actively thwart piracy.” This was to ensure that digital content that was broadcast over a digital medium (be that OTA, CATV or SATV) could not be illegally copied or distributed. This precipitated much concern and discussion over fair use rights, which subsequently resulted in several legal challenges. After much litigation the FCC’s broadcast flag system was finally eliminated in August of 2011 [8], but not before motivating virtually every other method for the electronic distribution of content to implement its own digital rights management initiative. The DVB Content Protection and Copy Management standard is similar to the FCC broadcast flag and describes how content will be controlled for European digital television. It protects audio-visual works, including films and television programs after they’ve been received by a consumer, to ensure that the usage is managed in accordance with the rights granted by the content owner or broadcaster. [9] DVBCPCM is in use today and affects as many as 900 million receivers on every continent. DVBCPCM also has a wide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Broadcast Flag: It's Not Just TV
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 57 Issue 2 Article 7 3-2005 The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV Wendy Seltzer Electronic Frontier Foundation Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Seltzer, Wendy (2005) "The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 57 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol57/iss2/7 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Broadcast Flag: It's not just TV Wendy Seltzer* I am not much of a TV person. My only set, non-HD, still picks up its channels through rabbit ears. The broadcast flag still gets me steamed, though, so much so that I recently built a high-definition digital video recorder just to beat the flag mandate. It is not about the TV. Rather, it is not about TV as broadcast to the passive consumer, to be received on single-purpose boxes. It is about TV as it could be, with innovative companies and tinkerers making TV broadcasts a core part of the converged home media network. The crippling of this kind of TV is an early warning against a pervasive technology regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • WGAW Reply Comments to the FCC on Set-Top Box Competition
    Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Expanding Consumers’ Video Navigation Choices ) MB Docket No. 16-42 ) Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices ) CS Docket No. 97-80 ) REPLY COMMENTS OF WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA, WEST, INC. Marvin Vargas Senior Research & Policy Analyst Ellen Stutzman Senior Director, Research & Public Policy Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. 7000 West 3rd Street Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 951-4000 May 23, 2016 Summary It is often the case that when new technology emerges incumbent providers make alarmist predictions about guaranteed harms resulting from these innovations. While some concerns may be reasonable, the overwhelming majority of outlined harms are never realized. As CBS Chairman and CEO Les Moonves said in 2015, “All these technology initiatives that supposedly were going to hurt us have actually helped us. SVOD has helped us. DVR has helped us. The ability to go online with our own content, CBS.com, and the trailing episodes – all have helped us.”1 With the entertainment industry currently dominated by a handful of companies that have never been more profitable, it is clear that new technology and forms of content distribution have helped, not hurt the industry. While new technology can create some business uncertainty, there is strong evidence that pro-consumer developments that make legal content more accessible to viewers benefits both consumers and content creators. The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules for a competitive navigation device market follow this path. The current pay-TV set-top box market is controlled by incumbent distributors who charge consumers high fees and exercise their gatekeeping power to limit content competition.
    [Show full text]
  • CI Plus DEVICE INTERIM LICENSE AGREEMENT
    CI Plus DEVICE INTERIM LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS CI Plus DEVICE INTERIM LICENSE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) entitles Licensee to access and use certain security elements, authentication certificates, specifications, software and test materials, to develop and manufacture compliant Hosts (as defined below) and/ or Modules (as defined below). The Agreement also includes an optional Logo (as defined below) license to the CI Plus mark for use on Registered Devices (as defined below). The Agreement is by and between CI Plus LLP (“CI Plus TA”) a United Kingdom limited liability partnership, and the Licensee identified below. The Agreement is effective as of the last date signed below (the “Effective Date”). CI PLUS LLP: Pannell House, Park Street, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 4HN. United Kingdom Registered in England and Wales. Registered No: OC341596 Individual Authorised Signatory: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: Signed: Name: Title: Date: LICENSEE: Company Name: Address: City: State: Postal Code: Country: Individual Authorised Signatory: Title: Phone: Fax: E-Mail: Signed: Name: Title: Date: Note to Licensee: Licensee shall elect either or both “Host” and/or “Module” in the definition of “Licensed Product” or “Licensed Component” by their selection in accordance with product category to be licensed at sections 1.25 or 1.26 CI Plus Interim Device License Agreement 1 Issued: 1st January 2012 WHEREAS, the group of companies that has established CI Plus TA has developed certain technology and methods for data encryption, encryption key management, and encryption
    [Show full text]
  • Closing Note Issued by Media Development Authority Of
    CLOSING NOTE ISSUED BY MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE CONTENT PROTECTION SECURITY REQUIREMENTS in support of the CROSS-CARRIAGE MEASURE IN THE PAY TV MARKET ISSUED ON: 1 July 2011 1. Introduction 2. MDA’s Responses to Comments Received 3. Conclusion and Issuance of Guidelines Annex A – References Annex B – Glossary of Terms Closing Note on Guidelines on Content Protection Security Requirements in Support of the Cross-Carriage Measure 1. Introduction 1.1. On 12 March 2010, the Media Development Authority (“ MDA ”) introduced the cross-carriage measure (“ Measure ”) to address MDA’s concerns over the nature of competition developing in the Singapore pay TV market and, in particular, the high degree of content fragmentation which had resulted in increased inconvenience and attendant costs for consumers and created significant barriers to entry for new entrants. The Measure imposes an obligation on Supplying Qualified Licensees (“ SQLs ”) (as defined in the Code of Practice for Market Conduct in the Provision of Media Services, also known as Media Market Conduct Code 2010 (“ MMCC 2010 ”)) to widen the distribution of their channels or programming content which are Qualified Content 1 (“ QC ”), by offering such content for access by SQLs’ subscribers over the Relevant Platforms 2 of Receiving Qualified Licensees (“ RQLs ”). 1 “Qualified Content” means: (i) any channel or programming content (whether in a linear or non-linear format), including any basic function in support of such channel or programming content that is specified in
    [Show full text]
  • Television a La Carte: American Broadcasting Cos
    THIS VERSION DOES NOT CONTAIN PAGE NUMBERS. PLEASE CONSULT THE PRINT OR ONLINE DATABASE VERSIONS FOR THE PROPER CITATION INFORMATION. NOTE TELEVISION A LA CARTE: AMERICAN BROADCASTING COS. V. AEREO AND HOW FEDERAL COURTS’ INTERPRETATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW ARE IMPACTING THE FUTURE OF THE MEDIUM Andrew Fraser I. INTRODUCTION Somewhere in Brooklyn, a large warehouse holds a bundle of over one thousand rabbit-ear antennas.1 In many ways these antennas resemble the ones that rested on top of generations of older television sets before the advent of cable, except for one small fact—these rabbit-ear antennas are each roughly the size of a dime.2 It is ironic that this ancient, seemingly outdated piece of television technology might signal the medium’s newest direction, but with Aereo at the helm, this may actually be the case. Aereo is a technology platform currently available exclusively in New York City that airs live broadcast television through the Internet to a subscriber’s mobile device, computer, or web-enabled television.3 When an Aereo subscriber wishes to watch a broadcast, he or she instructs an assigned Aereo antenna to capture signals from the public airwaves and to transmit them over the Internet to the subscriber’s mobile device.4 No two subscribers ever use the same antenna at the same time, and Aereo also offers DVR recording technology, so subscribers can watch shows live or recorded.5 With this incredible merging of both old and new technology, Aereo could have an enormous impact on the way consumers watch television, assuming that it can first survive what promise to be some intense legal challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broadcast Flag: Compatible with Copyright Law & Incompatible with Digital Media Consumers
    607 THE BROADCAST FLAG: COMPATIBLE WITH COPYRIGHT LAW & INCOMPATIBLE WITH DIGITAL MEDIA CONSUMERS ANDREW W. BAGLEY* & JUSTIN S. BROWN** I. INTRODUCTION Is it illegal to make a high-quality recording of your favorite TV show using your Sony digital video recorder with your Panasonic TV, which you then edit on your Dell computer for use on your Apple iPod? Of course it’s legal, but is it possible to use devices from multiple brands together to accomplish your digital media goal? Yes, well, at least for now. What if the scenario involved high-definition television (“HDTV”) devices? Would the answers be as clear? Not as long as digital-content protection schemes like the Broadcast Flag are implemented. Digital media and Internet connectivity have revolutionized consumer entertainment experiences by offering high-quality portable content.1 Yet these attractive formats also are fueling a copyright infringement onslaught through a proliferation of unauthorized Internet piracy via peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks.2 As a result, lawmakers,3 administrative agencies,4 and courts5 are confronted * Candidate for J.D., University of Miami School of Law, 2009; M.A. Mass Communication, University of Florida, 2006; B.A. Political Science, University of Florida, 2005; B.S. Public Relations, University of Florida, 2005 ** Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, University of Florida; Ph.D. Mass Communica- tions, The Pennsylvania State University, 2001 1 Andrew Keen, Web 2.0: The Second Generation of the Internet has Arrived. It's Worse Than You Think, WEEKLY STANDARD, Feb. 13, 2006, http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Con- tent/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp (last visited Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Underlying Motivations in the Broadcast Flag Debate
    Underlying Motivations in the Broadcast Flag Debate Allan Friedman,a Roshan Baliga, b Deb Dasguptac and Anna Dreyerd Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Washington DC September 21, 2003 Abstract: As the rollout of digital television progresses, content owners have expressed great concern for the security of their intellectual property if released unfettered across the airwaves in high definition digital form. The proposed solution, the broadcast flag, is to be attached to a digital broadcast signal, and would control to how the content could be used: to which devices it could be sent and how many times it could be copied. The content industry, led by MPAA, claims that this scheme will protect their content and, if it is implemented into the DTV infrastructure, they will freely release their content. Implementation requires the support of a variety of other actors, many of whom claims to support the flag as well. This paper posits that the probable benefits to many of these actors are distinct from their stated goals of supporting the technologically-embedded policy. After a brief description of what the broadcast flag and its history, we assess its utility as a policy tool. Since digital rights management problems in many ways resemble traditional information security issues, we posit that the formal threat model analysis of systems security is particularly useful in testing the robustness of a given system against a range of attacks. The efficacy of the flag is thus tested with a threat model analysis in the context of several digital rights management goals. We find that, while the flag would not successfully keep content off the Internet, it might offer content providers several other concrete benefits in controlling their content, including blocking heretofore popular consumer behaviors and shifting the balance of content control towards the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 84 | Number 1 Article 3 12-1-2005 The edeF ral Computer Commission Kevin Werbach Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (2005). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol84/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FEDERAL COMPUTER COMMISSION KEVIN WERBACH* The conventional wisdom that the computer industry thrives in the absence of government regulation is wrong. Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rules touch every personal computer ever made. Over the last quarter-century, the FCC has steadily increasedits influence over personalcomputing devices and applications. Perhaps surprisingly, though, the "Federal Computer Commission" has largely been a positive force in the technology sector. Regulators are now poised to take several actions that could shape the future of the Internet and the computer industry. In this environment, exposing the Federal Computer Commission provides a foundation for reasoned policy approaches. The fate of a dynamic and important set of industries should not be decided under the influence of a myth. INTRODU CTION ....................................................................................... 2 I. FEAR AND LOATHING .............................................................. 8 II. FCC COMPUTER REGULATION: PAST AND PRESENT ............. 14 A. Computers Invade the Phone Network ............................ 16 1. The Battle Over Terminal Attachments .................... 16 2. The Computer Inquiries and Open Network A rchitecture ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • American Broadcasting Company from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Jump To: Navigation, Search for the Australian TV Network, See Australian Broadcasting Corporation
    Scholarship applications are invited for Wiki Conference India being held from 18- <="" 20 November, 2011 in Mumbai. Apply here. Last date for application is August 15, > 2011. American Broadcasting Company From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the Australian TV network, see Australian Broadcasting Corporation. For the Philippine TV network, see Associated Broadcasting Company. For the former British ITV contractor, see Associated British Corporation. American Broadcasting Company (ABC) Radio Network Type Television Network "America's Branding Broadcasting Company" Country United States Availability National Slogan Start Here Owner Independent (divested from NBC, 1943–1953) United Paramount Theatres (1953– 1965) Independent (1965–1985) Capital Cities Communications (1985–1996) The Walt Disney Company (1997– present) Edward Noble Robert Iger Anne Sweeney Key people David Westin Paul Lee George Bodenheimer October 12, 1943 (Radio) Launch date April 19, 1948 (Television) Former NBC Blue names Network Picture 480i (16:9 SDTV) format 720p (HDTV) Official abc.go.com Website The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American commercial broadcasting television network. Created in 1943 from the former NBC Blue radio network, ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company and is part of Disney-ABC Television Group. Its first broadcast on television was in 1948. As one of the Big Three television networks, its programming has contributed to American popular culture. Corporate headquarters is in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City,[1] while programming offices are in Burbank, California adjacent to the Walt Disney Studios and the corporate headquarters of The Walt Disney Company. The formal name of the operation is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., and that name appears on copyright notices for its in-house network productions and on all official documents of the company, including paychecks and contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy Protection
    Content Protection / DRM Content Protection / Digital Rights Management Douglas Dixon November 2006 Manifest Technology® LLC www.manifest-tech.com 11/2006 Copyright 2005-2006 Douglas Dixon, All Rights Reserved – www.manifest-tech.com Page 1 Content Protection / DRM Content Goes Digital Analog -> Digital for Content Owners • Digital Threat – No impediment to casual copying – Perfect digital copies – Instant copies – Worldwide distribution over Internet – And now High-Def content … • Digital Promise – Can protect – Encrypt content – Associate rights – Control usage 11/2006 Copyright 2005-2006 Douglas Dixon, All Rights Reserved – www.manifest-tech.com Page 2 1 Content Protection / DRM Conflict: Open vs. Controlled Managed Content • Avoid Morality: Applications & Technology – How DRM is impacting consumer use of media – Awareness, Implications • Consumers: “Bits want to be free” – Enjoy purchased content: Any time, anywhere, anyhow – Fair Use: Academic, educational, personal • Content owners: “Protect artist copyrights” – RIAA / MPAA : Rampant piracy (physical and electronic) – BSA: Software piracy, shareware – Inhibit indiscriminate casual copying: “Speed bump” • “Copy protection” -> “Content management” (DRM) 11/2006 Copyright 2005-2006 Douglas Dixon, All Rights Reserved – www.manifest-tech.com Page 3 Content Protection / DRM Content Protection / DRM How DRM is being applied • Consumer Scenarios: Impact of DRM – Music CD Playback on PC – Archive Digital Music – Play and Record DVDs – Record and Edit Personal Content • Industry Model: Content
    [Show full text]
  • FCC ADOPTS ANTI-PIRACY PROTECTION for DIGITAL TV Broadcast Flag Prevents Mass Internet Distribution; Consumer Copying Not Affected; No New Equipment Needed
    News media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202/418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov NEWS ftp.fcc.gov Federal Communications Commission th 445 12 Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20554 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). 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. Today’s rules are targeted only at products that are capable of receiving DTV signals over-the-air. These products must comply with the broadcast flag requirements by July 1, 2005. Other products such as digital VCRs, DVD players and personal computers that are not built with digital tuners installed are not required to comply with the new rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcast Flags and the War Against Digital Television Piracy: a Solution Or Dilemma for the Digital Era? Debra Kaplan Indiana University School of Law
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 57 | Issue 2 Article 12 3-2005 Broadcast Flags and the War Against Digital Television Piracy: A Solution or Dilemma for the Digital Era? Debra Kaplan Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Kaplan, Debra (2005) "Broadcast Flags and the War Against Digital Television Piracy: A Solution or Dilemma for the Digital Era?," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 57: Iss. 2, Article 12. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol57/iss2/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Broadcast Flags and the War Against Digital Television Piracy: A Solution or Dilemma for the Digital Era? Debra Kaplan* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 326 II. THE MECHANICS OF THE SOLUTION ............................................ 328 A . The A TSC F lag
    [Show full text]