Actually, there's already a case at the supreme court challenging the 
betamax precedent, it's "MGM v. Grokster" and it's scheduled for hearing 
on March 29.  The EFF has a review of the case here 
(http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/)

The RIAA, the MPAA, and their proxies hate the betamax decision with 
such intensity that it's a little like watching a ball of elemental 
potassium dropped into a tank of highly chlorinated water (try it 
sometime, with LOTS of safety equipment handy).  They'll do just about 
anything to get that precedent set aside, and we can all expect more 
cases like this until the Congress finally gets a clue to what Copyright 
really is, and fixes the stupid mistakes that have been made in handling 
it (and patents) over the past few decades.

==Joseph++

Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote:

>I know I am chiming in late on this (Cronicly behind on my email) but was'nt
>the FCC chairman resently quoted as saying "You can take my Tivo when you pry
>it from my cold dead hands" ?
>
>I think the EFF may be convincing him of this very issue, and that another 
>batamax case is just looming for the brodcast flag.
>
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Joseph Sinclair wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Any equipment that connects to, consumes, or produces content that is 
>>typically transmitted via any domain over which they have jurisdiction 
>>may be controlled to whatever extent the FCC deems appropriate.
>>All other equipment may be regulated to the extent necessary to ensure 
>>an interference-free environment for licensed equipment.
>>
>>The FCC's scope is exceptionally broad, which is why they generally 
>>avoid regulation unless perceived as truly necessary.  The broadcast 
>>flag is an example of what happens when they are mislead about the 
>>nature and extent of a "problem" (in this case, "piracy"[copyright 
>>violation] of on-air digital broadcasts), and react to the 
>>misinformation, instead of the reality that there isn't a significant 
>>problem of HDTV copyright violations, and even if there was, there are 
>>better ways to handle it.  Besides, this new regulation really just 
>>prevents regular time-shifting and similar activities, all of which are 
>>legal, since criminals will just build a hacked box without the required 
>>protections, or a simple data filter to add/remove the flag in the 
>>incoming stream.  Getting around the broadcast flag is a clearly trivial 
>>exercise in data processing and electronics, but such activities would 
>>only be undertaken by a small minority of skilled persons, and those who 
>>would violate copyright.
>>
>>FoulDragon@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In a message dated 06.Mar.05 22:06:00 US Mountain Standard Time, 
>>>plug-discuss@stcaz.net writes:
>>>
>>>    They have complete authority to impose controls on equipment.
>>>
>>>Within what limits?
>>> 
>>>I can see them controlling so they can preserve the RF environment (ie 
>>>banning Baby's First Microwave Transmitter kit).
>>> 
>>>Whatever's done with a broadcast limit is all inside closed boxes 
>>>which, by and large, have no RF environment effects.  A mindset of 
>>>"this data needs to be parsed as we say" is a disaster waiting to happen
>>> 
>>>Let's sic the parents on this.  "If we can't record TV and analyze it, 
>>>how can we examine the kids shows frame by frame to certify they're 
>>>nipple-free?"
>>> 
>>>They already have a history of bitching to be heard.
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>  
>