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

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.

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)

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.