Broadcast flag dying?

As the proud owner of a TiVo for better part of 4 years now (which also is apparently dying but whatever.. I am concerned about any attempt to block copying of whatever is on my coaxial. I pay my damn Comcast bill, so they can shove it if I don't want to be home on Friday night to watch SG-1. The TV industry's reaction to people having too much freedom over TV content, fastforwarding commercials, etc, has been to lobby for a "broadcast flag", which would require all hardware devices bought after July 1 to implement. My understanding is that the local TV stations could choose whether or not to toggle the broadcast flag, which your hardware would then recognize and then prevent you from copying, fastforwarding, etc. This is very icky.
So USA Today reported on Wednesday that:

U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards told the Federal Communications Commission it "crossed the line" requiring the new anti-piracy technology in next-generation television devices.

This is good news, and prompted several good quotes on a slashdot thread:

Ckwop :
The broadcast flag isn't quite dead yet, but at least it's in trouble

This is by no means dead. When the entertainment industry can't foist something on you by the backdoor they use plan B: Ask the senate for a nice bit of special interest legislation.

tji :
> This is by no means dead. When the entertainment industry can't foist something on you by the backdoor they use plan B: Ask the senate for a nice bit of special interest legislation.

Actually, this was the back door.
Congress told them to fuck off when they went looking for legislation.
Then, they went to the FCC, and Michael Powell was more than willing to bend over for big business. But, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the current administration. They talk "free markets", but in practice there are way too many gifts to big business. (letting polluters out of environmental enforcements, letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements, etc.) Locking the little guys out of the market and perpetuating the market for the big guys.

Martin Blank :
You don't have authority to require people to pay fines, and that is enshrined in law. The government does, and unless you're part of the government, even by extension (deputized, for example), you don't have such a power, and you are explicitly barred from collecting such fines.

Congress is usually pretty specific on the powers it grants to the FCC. There have been several occasions when the FCC has found a loophole, and Congress has closed it rapidly. If they don't have legal authority here, Congress will have to explicitly give them such authority, which will probably get bogged down in debate. Many members of Congress are not particularly keen on these kinds of powers.

sanityspeech :
From the article:

  He [U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards] said the FCC "crossed the line" beyond its authority approved by Congress. "You've gone too far," he said. "Are washing machines next?"

...Another circuit judge, David Sentelle, agreed...

"You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world.

Anonymous Coward :
Cute, but to the extent you're serious, you're missing the point. The FCC has no authority to regulate communications equipment in this way. Congress did not authorize them to do so. The FCC admits that. The FCC argues that since Congress did not prohibit them from making this kind of regulation, they are allowed to do it. The judge is pointing out that if they are allowed to regulate something as long as it's not explicitly prohibited to them, then logically they can regulate almost everything. They can regulate washing machines, as long as there's no law stating "The FCC may not regulate washing machines."

It goes on and on but you get the idea.