The MPAA comments in the broadcast flag proceeding are worth reading.

At p.9, the MPAA asserts that "the focus of attention on unauthorized redistribution should be on whether a proposed technology affirmatively and reasonably constrains unauthorized distribution beyond the local environment. . . " What the MPAA means by this is that it believes no content protection technology that allows transmission of content online could ever be added to Table A.

What does that mean in humanspeak?  Well, it means that if you're using a "compliant" TV and you see a news clip that you'd like to send to your parents (who, let's assume, don't live with you), you won't be able to.  Nope, not unless you find a way to make a hard copy and mail it to them in a box (and they have a compliant device in their home that they understand and can use to play the recording).  Sounds cumbersome, doesn't it?  Sort of puts things in a box. 

Focusing on a "tightly defined geographic area" for redistribution allowed by content protection technologies seems odd in the age of the internet.  But even stranger is the MPAA's contention that software demodulators (code that "tunes" TV signals so that people can see them) must be covered by the flag rule.  So this means that the FCC is now in the business of assuring the "compliance" and "robustness" of code.  Software demodulators, the MPAA claims, can only be sold on the market if they are incorporated in a compliant "Demodulation Product."  Again, the box:  software "tuners" will have to be sold in a box with approved hardware in order to be legal. And won't be available, separately, for use in PCs (unless the digital outputs of those PCs are adequately robust and protected).

This is shaping up to be quite a battle.  Stay tuned (but don't use software to do so).

It would be good to get mainstream computer enthusiasts interested in this proceeding.  What's the best way to do that?