MPAA CEO Dan Glickman on the Broadcast Flag

Thomas Hawk writes "Motion Picture Association of America head Dan Glickman has an opinion piece up at CNET explaining why, even after they and the FCC lost the legal case to force the Broadcast Flag on us, we should still as consumers be advocates for it. The gist of Glickman's argument boils down to the old 'we're taking our ball and going home' game as he tries to convince us that without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television. 'Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'"

Comments

I personally want to call his bluff

[Anonymous Coward]

but that's just me

Who's content is it?

[danbond_98]

Lots of people seem to get up in arms about groups like the MPAA trying to control the way people view their content without remembering that it's their content and nobody has any right to it. Yes, your fair use is being compromised because you can't watch the show the way you want to, but they don't owe you anything, if you don't like it don't buy it. The thing that people should be upset with is things like the DMCA that mean that you're not allowed to exercise your fair use rights even if you technically can because you're not allowed to break the encrypted transmission. Thank goodness i like in the UK and there's not DMCA here (yet).

Re:Who's content is it?

[fireweaver]

Even if the MPAA/RIAA buys a law mandating the broadcast flag, I'm sure that some clever and enterprising individual will come up with a way to defeat it. Like for example, designing and building thier own HDTV demodulator that does not incorporate the broadcast flag and sharing the design.

But given the overall squirreliness of the current administration, which is so busy sucking the dick of big business, almost anything is possible. I can think of/have heard of several suckish things they might do.

[1] Regarding the aforementioned scenario, outlaw the private possession of high-performance silicon that is not part of some "approved" consumer applicance. (i.e. ADCs, DACs, FPGAs, etc.)
[2] An "internet licence" that one would have to apply for before going online. You would have to meet certain requirements, like, for example, being over 18, an USA citizen, not have a criminal record, etc. It might mandate that some kind of unique identity information be embedded in anything you sent.
[3] Limits on how fast and how much you can send or recieve in any given time frame, or perhaps metered access based on amount of data transferred with the rate going up sharply once you pass some threshold.
[4] New and secret internet protocols for "protecting content".
[5] Mandating "trusted computing".
[6] Whatever else you care to think of.

Re:Who's content is it?

[squiggleslash]

Let's lose the emotive language. The movie industry isn't a monopoly, and nor is it a cartel. It's an industry, and like any industry, there are things that will help virtually every participant, and things that will hurt virtually every participant. Groups like the MPAA, not to mention the BSA, RIAA, etc, all represent members of their industries and generally propose things that will help those members.

Sometimes those wishes coincide with what the rest of us want. the MPAA and RIAA, for example, have gone to the legislators to undermine proposed controls on freedom of speech. Very often though, the interests do not coincide with ours, or are so obscure that industry members are likely to believe in things that hurt "us", as geeks.

The fundamental issue for the content producers such as those represented by the MPAA is that they need money. They need it to fund the movies they create which is their primary business. Anything that threatens any aspect of this, directly (such as creating competition between previously separate sources of revenue) or indirectly (such as discouraging artists by allowing third parties to trample upon their moral rights and freedoms), is something they're concerned about. They do not want broadcast TV to be such an adequate substitute for cinema and DVD (or DVD2) viewing, that nobody bothers to do pay for either of the latter systems of movie viewing. They know that there's a sizable portion of people who "wait until it comes on TV" with virtually every movie, and they certainly don't want that to increase. They especially do not want people who'd otherwise buy a DVD waiting for the movie to appear on TV and then recording it at glorious DVD-quality, able, with the technology now in every modern PC, to remove ads.

It's pretty much difficult to be in the business of making movies and not want to keep your options open. Movie makers want to be able to sell cinema seats, DVDs, and TV showings. They really don't want to feel like one minor source of revenue (as TV showings generally are) would heavily hit a major source of revenue (such as DVD showings.) This isn't because they don't have competition, it's because that's the industry they are. I can start an independent studio tomorrow and my interests would suddenly converge with those of MGM and Universal before I'd even contacted by bank manager.

This is something those who propose conspiracies and bad-faith dealing behind every curtain need to recognize. You can scream "cartel!" and "Monopoly!" as much as you like, but if it's not true or, at any rate, that's not the reason, then all you're doing is yelling insults without addressing the fundamental problem.

Re:Who's content is it?

[THotze]

This is especially true in today's world.... think about it. First of all, I think the MPAA faces stiffer than usual competition from indie movie makers, as they've been using digital production techniques to milk more and more out of a small budget. There are plenty of good, relatively unknown actors out there, and a small budget gets you higher quality editing abilities, etc., than ever before.

And, the MPAA isn't competing just with movies, they're competing with anything that could be on TV. Think about it: major league soccer, lacrosse, any number or other growing sports in the US would bend over backwards, re-arrange schedules, etc., to get any kind of network TV exposure. And people would watch, instead of seeing Attack of the Clones for the 50th time in 5 years on TV.

There's all the stuff that TV networks can produce - sitcoms and the like, but reality TV looks like it is (unfortunately) here to stay - that it wasn't a passing fad as I'd guessed.

If the MPAA doesn't want to show movies on TV - fine, most people that I know rent movies they want to see - when a movies on TV, it tends to be edited for content, frequently shortened, and just a hassle to watch. Also, frequently I get the impression that with relatively recent movies, broadcasting is timed with the studio trying to make more money (example: episode 3 is about to come out? lets broadcast ep. 2. DVD special edition? Lets put on the movie, hype it up, get networks to expose people to the title some more.)

The MPAA can't win this one - they just can't - they risk loosing more than they can gain - but at the same time, I don't see them as betting a lot either way. I mean, I don't think broadcast revenues are a big deal to them compared to say, DVD and box office sales.... and I would have to say, if the networks stopped showing movies a year and a half after they were on DVD, and replaced it with other programming, I wouldn't miss it.

Tim

Re:Who's content is it?

[westlake]

I would rather that the big guys "take their ball and go home" rather than pollute my technology (HDTV, DVD player, internet connection, etc.). I would then just use my technology to do other things (like distribute creative commons material).

...which places you among a minority so small that it can safely be ignored.

the onus should be on the companies to prove that their content is worth it to the people, for us to continue to maintain their monopoly.

The Incredibles return to date is $640 million world-wide in ticket sales and DVD. 18 million DVD sales domestically in its first release, and currently the gold standard for home theater projection and sound. The odds are approaching 1 in 5 that if you own a DVD player, you will own a copy.

there is no compelling reason why the populace or government should help them.

The industry employs 360,000 waged and salaried workers in the U.S., concentrated in the cultural capitals of New York and Los Angeles. Motion Picture and Video Industry Not counted here are the numbers employed in secondary distribution channels such as cable tv, video rental and sales.

Hollywood has been tremendously successful in exporting culture, no one does it better; the export market for american films is huge and politically significant. Hollywood in the Era of Globalization

Now wait a minute,

[panxerox]

Isn't this the same group of companies that have been producing shows since the advent of the VHS recorder? I have a feeling that just the absence of new restrictive anti copying laws wont stop them from producing shows. This argument doesn't really have the ring of truth to me, TV is what they do what are they going to do stop producing shows and convert their companies over to real estate or something?

I call bullshit

[Tobias.Davis]

Network stations have no reason to not show quality programming now.

IIRC network television is all supplemented with advertising funds to make the particular network money, whereas the premium channels take a cut from the cableco for their income.

Network television has essentially been worthless for years due to the fact that advertising based income is a somewhat broken model, where HBO / Cinemax can afford to make quality programming due to their business model.

If america folds over and accepts this, we'll simply be rewarded by more subquality programming and potentially higher premium prices.

So predictable

[rjch]

I'd ask the question "when will these guys ever learn" except that if I got a reply of anything other than "never" I'd be totally shocked.

Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this "proposal" is most certainly not dead - as the article clearly stated, the ruling was against the FCC's authority to impose this measure, rather than against the measure itself.

Possibly it shouldn't worry me all that much, living in Australia. However with the FTA in force - and one of the provisions in the FTA relating to the respect of copyright protection, maybe it should. In the end though, I keep thinking of the quote I used to see when opening up MythWeb every now and again - consumers just won't buy devices that won't let them do what they want to.

Re:So predictable

[antiMStroll]

" I'd ask the question "when will these guys ever learn..."

They learned plenty. The road to a permament profit stream is to consistently proclaim untruths and lobby government to create a regulated market impervious to technological changes. The upside is that it took so long for corporations to absorb this lesson or we'ld still be side-stepping road apples and buying ice from delivery men.

Who needs who more ?

[EpsCylonB]

Do we really need their movies more than they need us to pay for them ?.

Bring it on, the broadcast prime time that was traditionally given to movies will be filled by new content. There are a lot of people who to be on TV and TV programs, not all of them are talented but this kind of subjective anyway.

Ultimately its the viewers that are in control, if they want big movie style television in the wake of the MPAA revoking its product, then someone else will make television programs to satisfy the audience.

It obvious to everyone on slashdot but the biggest mistake that the RIAA and MPAA made was to start attacking their customers. The truth is they are not really worried about being forced out of business, they worried about being undercut and having their dominant business model taken away.

They are powerful and the whole argument about digital media will take a long time to play out. But I am confident that even in the lobby controlled political climate of washington the customer will end up being right.

Re:Who needs who more ?

[slavemowgli]

Yes, in the end, the customer will end up being right - but what does the customer actually want? Or, rather, what will the customer(s) care about?

Several people have already made the argument that the industry needs the consumers more than vice versa, and concluded that thus, the consumers will ultimately prevail and that the industry will not be able to blackmail consumers by threatening to take away shows.

However, there seem to be a fundamental flaw in that argument - namely, the fact that unlike the industry, "the consumers" are not a well-defined entity that acts in a controlled, coherent, or even informed manner. Most people on Slashdot seem to understand why the broadcast flag is bad for them and (actively) oppose it; however, the same is not true for the general population. There really are three problems here:

1) The general population probably does not know about things like the broadcast flag at all. It's true that a significant number of people *do* know about it, but I'd be quite surprised if they'd outnumber the people who don't.

2) Of those who do know about it (after, say, reading about it in a newspaper etc.), the majority does not really care about it, as long as they'll still be able to watch tv like they did before.

3) Of those who do care, the majority are not realy informed enough to be able to reject the MPAA's arguments of why the broadcast flag ultimately would be beneficial to consumers.

That does not mean I believe that the MPAA has already won and that the broadcast flag will come in one form or another without their being a public uproar (even a minor one); but I also am not automatically confident that the general public will prevail, even though it clearly is more powerful than the MPAA.

As Terry Pratchett said, "...pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress." But unfortunately, that also means that a comparatively small dedicated group that *does* pull together can exert more influence than they should be able to.

Re:mythTV et al?

[Adrilla]

If you read the counter argument posted here it shows that the flag can be bypassed by simply ignoring it, the stream isn't even decrypted, it's the home electronics that we own that will do the policing for us. So they'll give rise to the beast that is mythTV since it'll become more popular in the underground for decrypting this broadcast flag should it ever get approved. Hell it might not even break the DMCA since the stream isn't encrypted. (although I'm sure they'll find a way to make it illegal)

Please please please...

[Big Sean O]

Just pull your content off broadcast TV already!

If you can make more money elsewhere, please do.

The broadcast networks are charging top dollar for advertising.

Somebody's making money on TV. They will continue to make money, despite my fair use right to make a copy for my private use.

MPAA turned the VCR into a tremendous revenue stream. For them to demand the broadcast flag without one shred of evidence that they're being hurt by my fair use rights is unmitigated gall. Show me some damages and I'll think about it.

I want to keep that set carpenter hippie that met his wife on the set of the Big Chill employed, I really do, but I don't see how if I burn episodes of "the Wire" to DVD so I can watch them later harms him. Glickman is going to have to come up with some big brib.. er... donations to get my Congressman to agree.

Please refrain from misrepresentations

[Jamesday]

Mr. Glickman, with respect, please refrain from misrepresenting the benefit and effect of the broadcast flag.

"The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates. ... Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet."

As we know, broadcast television shows movies after cinemas, pay per view, and video tape/DVD sell-through. Those present four opportunities to make and distribute copies of the works, two of which provide a digital picture stream identical to the broadcast stream. There is also the widely used pre-cimema opportunity, which results in distribution before first cinema showing even in the US. Please explain why you believe that those you seek to inhibit will choose to wait for broadcast television instead of doing what they currently do and using the earlier opportunities.

For two Of those earlier opportunities, cable and video tape, the studios or broadcasters have preveiously gone to the Supreme Court arguing that they would destroy their business. Please identify the businesses they destroyed after those cases were lost, since it appears that both are actually major revenue streams, and explain why you believe your arguments in this instance are of greater accuracy in predicting the future benefits to your members' businesses than those your predecessors made with their predictions of doom.

"The sole purpose and effect of broadcast flag is to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air"

I have rejected the TiVo technology as insufficiently flexile. It limits me to a narrow range of playback devices and restricts my ability to do things like editing to remove offenive content before playing to others, such as children. Compatibility between different implementations by different vendors in fights to achieve market dominance is also a concern. Capturing a video stream and producing more tools, provided secrecy and restrictions on protocols is not required, is a very promising market. The controls of the broadcast flag regime appear to kill this market for intelligent filtering and editing tools developed by a very wide range of small producers, often single individuals with limited funds, like the college student who developed the well known Virtual Dub video editing program.

Today I can time shift a video broadcast from homoe to my computer and then to an airplane or hotel room on a business or other trip. Using a single portable computer to do both this and the bunsiness activities. It appears that the restrictions of the broadcast flag will block this existing very useful capability or require the entirely impractical approach of taking the main family recording device with me.

"The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties."

That list of parties misses the most broadly affected group: end users of the video at home watching it on their home digital televisions with the great potential of ubiquitous home digital networks and home recording. It also appears to lack broadcast television stations. Perhaps consultation with the most affected parties would be of use - the ones who dislike this because they know it will fundamentally limit their opportunities for uninfringing use of the content?

Today, the threat of the broadcast flag is one of the factors which discourages me from purchasing or using digital television equipment. The sooner that threat is gone, the sooner it is that I'm likely to be interested in purchasing something which will no longer threaten to dramatically limit my legitimate uses of the content being broadcast. Congress acting today to prohibit the use of the broadcast flag or similar systems would be of significant help in encouraging my adoption of digital televisio

Consumers won't suffer

[8tim8]

Actually, it's the broadcast networks who will suffer if the MPAA takes its ball and goes home. I as a consumer have lots of opportunities to see, say, Spiderman 2 long before it comes to TV.

Of course, it's doubtful that the MPAA would ever carry through on this. Broadcast TV is 1) a significant revenue stream, and 2) far enough behind every other stream in terms of time that it doesn't matter all the much if the movie is copied like crazy. By the time a big movie hits broadcast TV, most other revenue streams have been exhausted.

Dear Mr, Glickman. . .

[kfg]

Please stop whining and do try to figure out a way to create "content" that is worth my giving you money for in the first place.

I shall not be attending showings of "The Longest Yard," nor shall I even watch it for free on broadcast television. Not because I have 'stolen' it from the Internet, but because it is a piece of shit that isn't worth wasting my time on, something that is far more valuable to me than giving you buck or five.

If you wish me to watch it I must insist on getting my government scale billing rate of $350/hr, plus hazardous duty pay.

I can use the money to buy Nero Wolfe, a cable television production, on DVD.

KFG

Re:Benefits of a Free Market System

[Artifakt]

Best advice in Aeons!
Write your congress critters the most thoughtful and well phrased letter you can. If he or she honestly gives a damn about doing the right thing, they might just listen to you. They might just become more educated, and even if they end up disagreeing with you on issue A, they are likely to modify their over-all position. Then write the same sort of letters to the editors of local papers, or do an informative 1 page writeup and ask to post it on your local library's kiosk or other public places.

If, on the other hand, your congrss critter is crooked as a dog's hind leg, the letters and public opinion polls will be used to drive the price of bribery up. The RIAA will lose out in the long run, as other companies will be able to bribe congress cheaper over less 'controversial' issues, and the greedier the congress critters become, the less likely they are to stay bribed to the customer's satisfaction.