Urgent Call To Action!!!

[Scott Greczkowski]

This an urgent CALL TO ACTION - SatelliteGuys.US Supports the EFF and hope you will do your part!

MPAA ATTEMPTS TO BYPASS CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
BROADCAST FLAG MAY BE SNEAKED IN THIS WEEK​

Rumor has it that this Tuesday, June 21st, in a sub-committee on Commerce,
Science, and Justice, a single senator will propose an amendment, hidden
among many others, to re-animate the MPAA's broadcast flag and burn it into
law.

On Thursday, the full Senate Appropriations Committee will vote on that
amendment. If they nod it through, the Broadcast Flag will be law.

It's the lobbyist's oldest, and most desperate, trick. If you can't win in
the market, snag a regulator. If you can't snag a regulator, get a law
passed. And if you can't get a law, sneak an amendment into one of
Congress's giant Appropriations Bills.

If you've received this mail from us, your senator is one of the few with
the power to put a stop to the flag.

ACT NOW TO STOP THE FLAG

Your senator is on the relevant sub-committee or the full Senate committee.
You have less than 24 hours to warn him or her of Tuesday's manoeuvre. You
have only 48 hours to warn the full committee.

Letters are too slow. The press will be too slow. Only you, as a constituent
of a senator on the committee, can reach them in time, by personal phone
call or by fax.

IF YOU HAVE THIRTY SECONDS

Click here to use our action center: read, add your own comments, and then
send a message directly to your senator via fax and email.

<URL:http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=145>

IF YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND A PHONE

Here are the list of senator contact details. Pick the one that matches your
state, and leave a personal message warning of what's planned in the
Appropriations committee.

Please be cool, collected and polite. There's a sample script after the
phone list.

SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744 ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens
(202) 224-3004 HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934 IOWA Senator Tom
Harkin (202) 224-3254 KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521 KENTUCKY
Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541 MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski
(202) 224-4654 MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721 NEW
HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324 NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici
(202) 224-6621 NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551 TEXAS
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922 VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy
(202) 224-4242 WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621 WISCONSIN
Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653

FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (202) 224-5054
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254 MONTANA Conrad Burns (202)
224-2644 UTAH Robert F. Bennett (202) 224-5444 IDAHO Larry Craig (202)
224-2752 OHIO Mike DeWine (202) 224-2315 COLORADO Wayne Allard (202)
224-5941 WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Byrd (202) 224-3954 NEVADA Harry Reid (202)
224-3542 CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841 ILLINOIS Richard J.
Durbin (202) 224-2152 SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842 LOUISIANA Mary
L. Landrieu (202) 224-5824

A TYPICAL CALL

"Hello, Senator _________'s office"

"Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm registering my opposition to the broadcast flag
amendment being introduced in the Senate Commerce Justice and Science
Appropriations subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on
Thursday."

(*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag here. Here's a
sample: ***)

"The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of receiving over-the-air
digital broadcasts. It give Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over
how members of the American public use our televisions. It forces American
innovators to beg the FCC for permission before adding new features to TV.
"

"This is an important issue which will affect all Americans, and should not
be inserted at the last moment, with almost no debate."

"Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and address are
___________________."

"Thank you for your time."

And thank you for reading this,

The activists at the EFF.


: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

EFF is a member-supported nonprofit
Make a donation and become a member today!
<http://secure.eff.org/join>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :


* Administrivia

The EFF Special Action Alert is an occasional email targeted to EFFector
subscribers who can make an impact on a specific issue. You can subscribe to
EFFector without subscribing to these special alerts. Click here to
unsubscribe or manage your subscription preferences:

http://action.eff.org/site/CO?i=DhWDD6sFbxwYUoP07F6jRP8ImSRjWkuK&cid=1341

Click here to change your email address:
http://action.eff.org/addresschange

The EFF Special Action Alert is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/

Editor:
Danny O'Brien, Activism Coordinator
danny@eff.org

Membership & donation queries:
membership@eff.org

General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:
information@eff.org
​

 

[Neutron]

I sent mine. Hollywood cannot get away with this.

 

[slacker9876]

Yes they can ... Let's all hope they do not. If they do allow me to be the first to propose the class action lawsuit against the MPAA.

 

[cdru]

I sent mine. Hollywood cannot get away with this.

Unfortunately they all but have. Once it got to this stage, there are two chances that it gets removed, slim and none.

The good news is that the broadcast flag can be defeated by taking a sharpie and marking the end of your coax cable.

 

[korsjs]

i will send the email.


edit.
nevermind, my state is not on the list.

 

[cdru]

nevermind, my state is not on the list.

Sadly, my state is on the list, but my zip code isn't so it rejects it.

 

[sateck01]

sorry,

i support this one, this is about taping , not broadcast .

get a life and PAY FOR THE DVD, you have no right to tape a show you paid to watch once.

 

[charper1]

Sateck did I read and reread that correctly? We DO have the right to tape (record) and rewatch in the privacy of our own homes as we see fit, we do not have the right to charge others to watch it, or sell it to profit.

 

[LER]

The broadcast flag will **PREVENT** you from **RECORDING** for **PRIVATE** home use.

Send the E-Mail. I did (as well as tipping Scott off to this).

LER

 

[sateck01]

do i have the right to agree/disagree with any/ all of you???

there have been posts on here about burning straight to disc on computers, what then is there to stop the copy geeks???


dragon(bob)(sateck01)

 

[LER]

Sure you can disagree. I just think that recording to disc, even via computer, for **PRIVATE** **HOME** **USE** is perfectly fine, and within the copyright law.

Remember, the airwaves are a **PUBLIC** trust.

My opinion, not necessarily that of SatelliteGuys.us (even though I'm staff).

LER

 

[charper1]

Sure you can disagree. I just think that recording to disc, even via computer, for **PRIVATE** **HOME** **USE** is perfectly fine, and within the copyright law.

AMEN! Why should 99% of all of us have our legal rights screwed because 1% can't abide by the current law?

Should you have your right to drive taken away because of a few DWI drivers?

HELL NO! Use your head.

 

[sateck01]

Sure you can disagree. I just think that recording to disc, even via computer, for **PRIVATE** **HOME** **USE** is perfectly fine, and within the copyright law.

Remember, the airwaves are a **PUBLIC** trust.

My opinion, not necessarily that of SatelliteGuys.us (even though I'm staff).

LER

yes OTA is ok to record, those are public airwaves, you are correct. directv and dish are not free, explain that, please

.....bob

 

[charper1]

I paid for it, or subscribed to it, to enter my home, onto my TV, then it is my right to use the product however I see fit in my house, for private use, as long as I do not make a profit or charge others to view it.

AND aren't those DBS companies using frequencies granted to them by FCC licence? Thus they are still our airwaves, its just their personal satellite.

 

[cbh]

I sent mine to Senator Herb Kohl.

 

[sateck01]

I paid for it, or subscribed to it, to enter my home, onto my TV, then it is my right to use the product however I see fit in my house, for private use, as long as I do not make a profit or charge others to view it.

AND aren't those DBS companies using frequencies granted to them by FCC licence? Thus they are still our airwaves, its just their personal satellite.

no, not granted, they paid thru the nose for the licenses
that is why those sats are up there ,,,,,to make A PROFIT

......again .....to a republican????

...a REAGAN REPUBLICAN :shocked

 

[charper1]

You totally skipped my entire point on FAIR USE.

AND

I didn't say they were given; I said they were granted.

GIVEN: Bestowed as a gift; presented.

GRANTED: A transfer of property by deed.


This generally infers payments were made or exchanged.

How the heck did politics and Reagan get into the frey? This is how constructive discussions go awry by people resorting to turning and twisting the points of the discussion for confusion's sake.

 

[Tron]

Sent my message to the Media Nazis (via my senator, of course).

This kind of heavy-handed control of the airwaves has no place in America.

 

[sateck01]

charper,

what gives you or any else the right to pay for one viewing,, and re view it???

or should


i say WHO

teddy??? rangell?? kerry????? look at the garbage you are dealing with!!

 

[charper1]

the fair use laws currently in place in the country, thats what? the same thing that allows me to buy a cd and copy it to a cassette to listen to in my car or walkman. over and over again at my leisure for no additional cost. what rock are you under?

Stanford Fair Use Overview

Artwork and Audiovisual Cases

snip

* Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the "Kojak" television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library-building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)

snip

The vast majority of users record shows to watch the programs at a later time, even 2 or 3 or more times and this has been deemed LEGAL!

What you are wanting is to go fishing with dynamite! Kill everything just to get the few. Why not just devise the correct way to go after ONLY the true pirate stealing profits? Not the casual or even advanced home users.


COURT RULING & COURT CASE

The Court's ruling to reverse the Ninth Circuit in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.

On the question of whether Sony could be described as "contributing" to copyright infringement, the Court stated:

[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses....

The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use....

If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs ... and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents' works....

When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.

Combined with noncommercial, nonprofit nature of time-shifting, he concluded that it was indeed a fair use.