FCC approves Digital TV flag
Tue Nov 4 19:06:32 EST 2003
Aaron Read noted/asked:
>Is it just me, or is this article got some of its facts very poorly
>represented? The description of how analog vs. digital TV works is
>skirting the edge of misrepresentation,
Yes & No i.e. the use of the term "Computer Language" refers to
1's & 0's - which is true. Vague, but true.
>and the statement: The proliferation of music on the Internet has
>held down the sales of CDs, and the music industry has started to
>sue listeners who illegally distribute the songs online.
The first clause is subjective and open to debate. How much the
sales have been held down is not well-defined - maybe only 1 or 2
CD's (who knows?), but definitely held down. And, it is true the
music industry is suing people who illegally distribute.
>Not to mention the article leaves out that there's a snowball's
>chance in hell the technology to create this "flag" can be
>successfully implemented in all new digital TV sets by July 1st 2005,
If the copyright owners want it to happen, the Pharaoh will say
"so it is written, so let it be done" and voila, manufacturers
will step in line. See how easy it is to do?
>and even if by some miracle they make it...it'll already have been
>cracked, no doubt.
Ah, but IIRC, implementation of a decryption scheme is patented along with the encryption scheme. Implementation of any decryption scheme
violates the law (patent/license scheme.) Or so some would have us
believe. Be that as it may - anyone hell-bent on breaking the law is unlikely to be ultra-choosy about how the law is broken unless the
penalty differences are onerous.
It appears that writing for the masses is easy. Just gloss over technical stuff, present allegations as facts and choose the data that supports your point. What could be simpler?
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest