Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
but that's just me
...how they stopped showing movies on TV after the VHS threatened to rape and strangle all of the women in Boston?
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?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
An opposing piece by tech attorney Jim Burger.
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television.
So let me get this straight. They're paranoid that a big pirating ring is going to be started by the 15 percent of homes that don't even have cable? Movies are old once they hit broadcast, the television shows are usually ripped by people with HDTV, and sports games become pretty useless to watch immediately after they've been played. But yet they're in an uproar over not being able to show "movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television". I doubt the movie makers are even rushing to get these movies on broadcast TV, once they do that, the value of the DVD sales goes down. I'm tired of this chicken little act. The sky is not falling, and that 15% is not your worry when it comes to protecting broadcast television.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
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.
In this case people are up in arms about the MPAA trying to control what features their (the customers') television sets have. You seem to have forgotten that these televisions are our property and that nobody else has any right to them. Funny how you'd make a mistake like that.
Nah, what he is really saying is that his organization is incapable of managing this change in a simple and profitable way.
No problem! There are a million other companies that can probably handle this transition, please take your ball and go home so the next player can enter the arena.
Next!
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.
When governments give away the use of the spectrum or sell it at an artifically low price, then yes, they do owe the people something. What exactly is owed and how serious a burden it is may be debated.
Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag.
Yeah right. Sounds to me like only "approved" setups will be allowed. That is, any company that doesn't play by their rules (paying fees, restricting the technology of course) won't be allowed to make a TiVo-like device. So it will be absolutely impossible for a do-it-yourself-er or even a small company to offer a competing product. MythTV would not work in this setup. I won't be able to build my own TiVo-like device from spare parts at a reasonable cost. The broadcast flag thereby mandates and controls activities in other sectors of the economy. This is not a good thing. Of course, the mythTV-style people who build their own from scratch will probably find a workaround, but this still means that advancement and innovation in TiVo-like technology (and other novel distribution schemes) will be slowed if not completely stopped. I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but this broadcast flag steps way out of bounds.
This is wonderful news! All the shows and movies these people make suck terribly anyway. They've got a government license to beam this crap through our bodies, but we're not allowed to copy it. Fine! They should just stop producing content. Perhaps the 15% will read instead. This comment's lame - sorry bout that. I'm just sick to death of television. Of course, I'm sitting in a master control suite in a tv station right now. Alone. Reaching out to the nameless masses of geeks. Well, at least the wine store will be open when I get off work.
'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.'
What Glickman doesn't understand, or more likely wishes weren't true, is that his argument holds no water in a free market system. All it takes is a very simple thought experiment to make it clear:
If no studios allow "their" content to be broadcast in high-def because there is no broadcast flag, then there will be an unmet market demand. Sooner or later at least one company -- be it an established studio or a new upstart -- will decide that they don't need a broadcast flag in order to license their movies for high-def broadcast. At that point they will have the entire market to themselves and it will be easy money to fullfill that previously unmet market demand.
Once one company is seen to be making easy money, others will decide they would like some of that easy money themselves and will enter the market too. Eventually either all the old studios will be in the market just as they are for standard-def broadcasts, or they will have isolated themselves, becoming niche players in the over all "content" market.
The key to the free market system here is that the studios need the audience way more than the audience needs them. Without an audience they will starve and die, without high-def movies, we'll just watch DVDs, read a book or do something else like go skiing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
it's their content and nobody has any right to it.
Okay, sure it's their content. They can decide not to release it to the public in any format. They can lock it away in a vault. They can only release it in theatres if they want. But if they want to take advantage of a cheap and powerful distribution scheme (like broadcasting over the air or distribution in digital format via DVD), then they have to deal with the way that scheme operates in the real world. And this doesn't mean that the government should step in with laws that restrict this distribution scheme, so as to protect the big companies business model. Personally, 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).
And frankly the only reason this ridiculous situation even exists is because the movie industry (and music industry) is effectively a monopoly. There is no competition to deliver better product at better price. Hence, we end up with protectionism when in fact 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.
If the MPAA don't like the way broadcast television or the internet works, then they are welcome to just stay out of it and let another company step up to the plate and make it work (i.e. competition, capitalism, good for the consumer, etc.). It should not be within their power to change laws or technology to make things work the way they want (they can release their own "MPAA-approved!" TV sets, but making it law that I can't modify or reverse-engineer their TV set should not be within their power!). They want to have it both ways, and there is no compelling reason why the populace or government should help them.
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.
The broadcast flag is just another tool devised by the MPAA to help insure that if people want to watch something beyond the original air-date, they'll have to go out and buy it.
The broadcast flag isn't about bringing media to the masses, it's about bringing media to the masses, grabbing them by the grapes and squeezing every penny they possibly can from the public.
Fact is, by the time a production makes it to broadcast television, it's made all the money it's going to make. Companies purchase advertising time, the production houses make some more money. At this time, it doesn't make one bit of difference whether someone tapes or doesn't tape a movie from the television, and the funny thing is, that the taping of movies from broadcast or cable television is protected under fair-use.
By insisting that there be a broadcast flag, the MPAA is basically saying, "We don't care about your right to fair-use, we want your money and we'll get it, one way or another."
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
It may be their content, but it's my TV they are trying to mandate something on. I have no intention of buying their content, why should they have a right to have a say on what kind of TV I'm allowed to use?
The head of the MPAA, which chooses to drag users over the coals and shut down more and more options for them to receive broadcast content, now illicits their assistance in further curtailing their viewing rights, or at least providing a mechanism to?
I've never heard machinations so Machiavellian. Trying to convince us the quality of TV shows and movies will go down..... from what point? It is pretty bad as it stands.
The most insulting line of it all:
"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."
If your companies want to continue to show their programming to broadcast viewers, stop suing them and making them sell their televisions. Better yet, this is an admission that an antiquated business model will attempt self-repair through unscrupulous service cuts which harm the end-user.
The MPAA has done enough to harm the rights of viewers who can't give $23412523 dollars to the major cable and sattelite players.
We need new solutions, folks.... we just do. At this rate, who knows where we are headed in this field.
The Crimson Dragon
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.
My father is a blogger.
I'm amused by their veiled threat to "take their ball and go home," as the submitter put it. This is such an empty threat. If they take their ball and go home, they make no money, and the industry they're supposedly protecting will hemorrhage when consumers will figure out something else to watch or do. That, of course, would pretty much take away their tiny little kingdom.
In other words, what they're really scared of is that we will take our ball and go home. When the RIAA pulled this crap, a large number of people basically said, "to hell with you and your stupid laws, I'm going to download and share these files anyway." Their little temper tantrum lawsuits have done very little to make a dent in that, and in fact, has mainly served the opposite effect as a publicity tool for peer-to-peer networks.
Right now, not many people share or download movies. Right now, studios and organizations like the MPAA are trying to stifle people's ability to do so. Right now, it is still happening (witness all of the hoopla over Revenge of the Sith). The more they fight it, the more they publicize it and the more people will do it.
If a television or DVD player won't play a movie or television show I want to watch for whatever reason, I'll simply get my television or DVD player from somewhere else. I hope that most consumers aren't foolish enough to buy into the sales pitch that a valuable feature is, "Hey, this device protects the industry by keeping you from watching stuff you want to!"
If these organizations were truly interested in helping studios and consumers, instead of trying to figure out how to put proverbial genies back into their respective bottles, they would be helping to figure out innovative ways to make people WANT to use non-illegal means to view their content. What they're doing now is only hurting the industry and will continue to do so until someone makes them stop.
So my response to Mr. Glickman: Go ahead, take your ball and go home. Will it hurt the consumer? A little bit, you bet. But after a little while when people like you are finally out of the equation because your own stupid beliefs and decisions and caused the industry and consumers to openly rebel against you, maybe we'll finally have an industry that can make everyone happy. You seem to keep forgetting that it's our game, not yours, to play.
</sarcasm> for those who need the hint.
Remember what happened with the original Circuit City DivX? The MPAA told CC the same thing: without strong hardware encryption, there was no way they would allow their movies to go to market on DVD. Contrary to /. legend, DivX didn't die from consumer rebellion, it died from lack of content because all the movies were on plain DVD, not DivX.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Kill your TV!
.. what .. exactly? Generations and Generations of people sitting around on their asses, enslaved by the God Box.
..
Seriously! All this hoop-lah about
Turn it off. Take it outside. Smash it.
Talk to your neighbor instead. Learn a new board game. Do something you've never done before. Go somewhere new. Take walks. Learn a new hobby.
The end result of Television is: Wasted Minds.
Let the "Entertainment Cultists" cry their woe. All you TV-bots are wasting valuable resources. You know how much OIL it takes to make a TV show? You know how much OIL it takes for 10 million people to watch the same show, every day, over and over, all over the country?
Seriously. You are Not Being Entertained, your Mind is being Controlled by Remote
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Again, I am not seeing any mention of the irony that the last Star Wars (one of the worst movies I've ever seen btw) broke all records in its debut... all this with piracy still "not under control" by Glickman's definition. I think a poster in the previous article on Glickman even suggested (and I agree) not only would totally free and available downloading not have hurt the opening of Star Wars, it may have enhanced its takings.
As for the broadcast flag.... the last thing I want my providers mucking around with is having to write code to accommodate the frigging broadcast flag. How many of you have the Comcast HD PVR box? In the last week it has "claimed" to record more than three shows that never showed up in the play list. It created an entry in the play list that had no title, claimed it was recorded in 1998, and was unplayable, and once I tried to play it, locked the machine up solid and only a power cycle recovered it.
I want my Comcast guys spending their time and effort fixing those bugs, not honoring a request by the MPAA to restrict even more my access to media.
The technology moves ever forward, and has the potential to really improve our lives, yet these guys who won't even expend the energy to pick up a ten dollar bill because they're too filthy rich making money off of other peoples' talent insist on leveraging the power of new technology to add a little more Hell to our lives.
I'll probably get modded troll..., but really, I am so close going "off grid", I am so frustrated with battling technology rather than reaping benefits from.
Let's be honest: You want to protect the content of your media from unauthorized duplication and distribution. I see no problem with trying to protect your content, but you have to remember that your consumers have certain fair use rights. While some form of protection may be invovled, many have disagreed with this particular implementation of protection.
Failure to implement the broadcast flag on the July 1 date will be a significant step backward in the transition to digital television. It would also lead to unnecessary confusion in the marketplace, since most television manufacturers have already changed their production to incorporate broadcast flag technology.
All of which is a problem of your own creation. If your industry was not so insistent that the FCC implement something that is beyond their powers, you would not be in this situation.
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.
The consensus that you speak ignores the most important group: Consumers like library associations disagreed with the FCC's decision so much that they sued. Also your revisionist history does not mention that most of the major TV manufacturers objected as well.
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television.
This proposal only places restrictions on broadcast content that does not exist today and grants controls to the MPAA that it does not have today. Indirectly, this clause gives the MPAA the power to control which equipment a consumer can use. Want to buy a new TV to watch the Superbowl in HD in 2007? You can only buy those TVs that have the broadcast flag even if you don't like any of the features.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you can't get what you want by first having a government agency do your (illegal) dirty work for you then politely ask the public to stab themselves in the back with the knfe you provide. To assist in the process tell them that being stabbed is actually *good* for them - then wait and see how many sheep, er, consumers follow along.
Redefining the debate by trying to change the terms via brainwashing seems to be the misguided corporate way. Throughout history, Governments, Businesses and other Institutions have tried and failed to stop technology and ideas from changing things (read as a loss of power and control), from the printing press to the automobile to the internet.
Get over it.
Adapt.
Grow.
Change.
or Just Die and someone else will take your place
(Actually, I think this is already underway!).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Mr. Glickman, with respect, please refrain from misrepresenting the benefit and effect of the broadcast flag.
... Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet."
"The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates.
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
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.
The EU introduced the EUCD which is similer to the DMCA.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
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
The key to remember about the broadcast flag is that it is an attempt to make a law to force manufacturers of equipment to put something in their equipment that they do not want, nor do their customers.
And when they threaten to not show any good movies or shows on television, they have to remember that we simply won't watch television, and won't see their comercials, and their advertisers won't be so interested any more.
They have the right to do what they want with their content, it is their property, but they do not have the right to get laws passed to force other people to do things with their property the do not want, and they should remember people actually watching are what pay their salaries.
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Robert A. Heinlein
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.
Besides, if you put "I'll probably get modded down for this", it's like an instant bonus as they normally get modded up. Of course this post will be the exception to the rule.
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.
Non-US HDTV equipment (Canadian, Mexican, etc.) will not have broadcast flag. The US version will differ only in (flashable) firmware. The manufacturers, not wanting to lose the poweruser market to grey imports, will make flashing the device very, very easy, though to cover their asses will make sure it can't be done legally (i.e. it would violate DMCA, but no-one would ever be able to find out about it).
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
All, I repeat, ALL you have to do is embed the ADVERTISING so that it cannot be stripped out.
Television is a medium for delivering advertisements to people. Period. If you believe otherwise, you're delusional. Tivo and file-sharing threaten televsion, not because of any nonsense about copyrights, but because they get in the way of this delivery network and allow people to watch TV without watching the commercials that are needed to keep it running.
(a copyright is a completely intangible thing. It is merely a route to profit, worthless in and of itself. Accordingly, if copyrights become a barrier to profit, they will fall into disuse.)
So, you just have to eliminate commercial breaks. This is pretty much a win-win scenario for EVERYONE, since it means (hypothetically) the entire TV show is one gigantic advertisement, and in the meantime, the TV-viewing public gets shows that are *actually* an hour long, rather than 40 minutes. Use product placement and scrolling banners, or perhaps a PnP in the corner flashing up logos and quick animations.
(won't work? Go look up studies about people who watch TiVo'ed commericals on muted fast-forward. They often have *better* ad retention than those who watch the commericals at normal speed with sound.)
So, that's it. Do that and no one will give the slightest crap how many people pirate a TV show, because every pirated copy is just one more person seeing the wonderful, wonderful advertising that makes the world go round. I can see a future just a few years away where TV producers are actively working to increase the number of shared copies, and including pirates in their viewing statistics when pitching to advertisers.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Good shows on TV?
I thought they were already all cancelled and replaced by unreality shows.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why is a law necessary? It's really none of the government's business...
What's stopping them from being detailed in the contract; like tell the networks "You can broadcast this movie only if you use this technology." If enough companies did this, they'd eventually get their way without a law.
But don't force a law on us which stops broadcasters from broadcasting how they want to.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
Well, yeah, there is.
If you go back to the early days of television, say fifty years ago, we had a very similar situation. Motion picture executives were scared to death of television. The idea that a pair of eyeballs could see one of their movies without paying sent them into a fit.
The bean-counters, on the other hand, quickly spotted a new market for all of the old films back in the vault. And so, a policy was formed; motion pictures from major studios WOULD appear on television, but only after suitable fees were paid and not until the studio had had seven years to milk all of the theatrical showings.
The people rejoiced and there were movies on one network or the other almost every evening. The fact that they were old black and whites didn't matter, since the tv of the day was also black and white.
But, moving into the sixties, color televisions started to appear in America's living rooms. And there weren't enough color movies being released to satisfy tv audiences. Black and white movies, as good as they were, just didn't satisfy the lust for color. What to do?
So was born the industry of "Made for TV Movies". No major stars, but available now. Soon, the power of the market got the attention of the major studios and they began revising their "seven years in the vault" rule. First five years, then three, then one. There were audiences to feed and a new MFTV industry was causing the Major Studios to lose money.
And so here we are today. Digital techniques make movie production easier than ever and what do the Studios do? Promise to hold their breath (and their films) until they turn blue.
Screw 'em. If they won't release their files without a "Broadcast Flag", then fine. Someone else will make movies for TV. Bottom line: you can't have a monopoly unless you are the only one who can produce.
Since when has anything done by the MPAA members been a driving economic force in NON pay television? Do they think showing Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark which hit the theaters in 1982 is some sort of cash cow? Or are they referring to imaginary box office hits that they are fantasizing about coming to NBC first instead of Starz?
Broadcast television still does make money and garner viewers. Plenty of cable and satellite customers turn to the networks every night. Many of them got those services not because of the pay channels but to get proper picture reception of the programming carried on local stations.
However, since long before the advent of the VCR, major motion pictures were shown, ran their run, and that was it. They never came to television.
Is the MPAA somehow thinking that NBC and the others will stop producing things like CSI, Survivor, The Bachelor, etc.? Did the existance of the VCR stop horrible mid-eighties television movies of the week? Did it stop Thirtysomething? I only wish it had.
These are the same people who were originally against cable television itself, later on HBO and other movie services, and that was long long before the advent of the VCR. Later on they were against the VCR. Then they were against DVRs.
Are cable and satellite DVR service users a threat to their bottom line? Not in the slightest. Cable DVR service users cannot open and modify their units without destroying cable company property. Dish users can open their self-owned boxes and frequently do "rip" movies and shows. However, they can only rip what was already broadcast by HBO and the others first. By the time that has happened, the movie has already been availible for rental on DVD for one or more months. And the initial pirate rip? It was done BEFORE the rental/purchase DVDs were manufactured when the movie was still in first release, BEFORE it hit the matinee discount theaters.
There's no way around it: the MPAA has their heads so far up their asses they've become living Moebius strips.
Personally, I'd like to see the other side put their money and effort where their mouth is to counter this horsehockey. IOW, the independent movie makers out here should see about getting the end-users/viewers to be the ones fronting the money in advance of the making of the picture they way big movers and shakers in Hollyweird buy into movie production bonds on spec to make money after it is finished.
Except that the movie in this case would be made entirely on the receipts paid by the viewers in advance and if anything was left over, that would be the profit. The catch? The movie goes the way of FOSS and can be distributed and copied ad nauseum any way and number of times the public likes but NO ONE can charge a cent for it: the money was already paid in. The people wouldn't be investing to make money on it, they'd be investing on taking a share of the collective IP resulting.
I'm sure that there's plent of geeks and nerds hereabouts who would damn near kill to get a proper movie about hackers and network life made as opposed to Hackers and War Games.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
"Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television"
Boo hoo. Take Fox then and shut it down. Big loss. If it means I miss out on next week's Stacked, American Idol, My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, Super Nanny, or half the crap they've been peddling on network TV for the last 6 years, they can keep it. It's a sad stste our television entertainment industry is in when half our network lineup is bad reality shows and the rest is courtroom drama. There's nothing challenging or entertaining on broadcast television anymore.
"Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag. The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network; it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks."
So why does Tivo get the only "Get Out of Jail Free" card? Why can't a viable model like eDonkey or BT be allowed? He's allowing for transfer in a personal home network. Why's that okay but not online? The content you record off air in CA is no different than the content in TX, AZ, NJ, or NY. Who cares if it came locally?
"The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television."
No there isn't. Tell me where that flag is that prevents shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, American Chopper, Reno 911, or the Sopranos from getting around online on file trading networks? I've never seen it get enforced. I would think that if this is a problem, it would have been flipped on at the satellite's end LONG ago.
"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."
Really? Who makes money off of television... You or us? I think consumers can find newer and better ways of entertaining ourselves in a lack of "appealing" television options. Glickman's concerned that we'll all suffer with no TV. For christ's sake! Are we all that stupidly addicted to Survivor and American Idol?! I would hope not.
If he thinks local television will ONLY suffer when their crappy programming gets killed off, he needs to go talk to some of the smaller local network affiliates who had to shutter their news departments due to lackluster lead-in ratings performance from their national network feed.
We need to send a message that corporations do not own us, and we are not to be branded and sold whatever they feel like selling us.
I hate sigs.
"TV Industry Promises to Stop Broadcasting Altogether"
EXCELLENT! PLEASE DO!
What I don't understand is why broadcasters would cut themselves off from another advertising channel. an ad is anything that is used to promote the sale of a product or service, and, these days, that means the actual shows and movies themselves are ads, since you can go buy them on DVD, as well.
Am I really going to "suffer" from losing an advertising channel? Hell, I'd pay to get RID of it!
This was a threat. It does not come off to me like a plea to users. He is saying they will not, not "cannot", put out decent content if they cannot protect it to the point of keeping their overpaid companies in business. There is no value to the content they have been putting out recently. Re-hashed content from the past, like it was a part of the business model they came up with when the first recording abilities showed up in their arsenal. They were thinking, "Allright, we no longer have to fill every minute with new content. What's more, we can use past content with new versions using new actors and new modern phrases and send the same content out. The longer we last, the less we have to do."
We can do one of two things, (without giving in to these media terrorists). Learn to live without the media mind killer, (not likely with most people I know), or start another corporate killing industry of Open Source or Shareware media. Not media making apps, but produce the content ourselves. Writing Open Source software is something people are doing out of need in many cases due to the lack of innovation or lack of "perfect fit". Not everyone does this, but those that do are helping millions of others. Why not media content? As it has been stated again and again by many, including these corporate babies, the ability to make and distribute media content is no longer a "corporate only" ability. Many are making content, but not enough to cover all the demand.
Where are all those people that cannot watch a show or listen to a tune without saying all the things that could have been done better? Explain to them how open that field is. All of you with these tech toys need to get with these creative minds and help them put their thoughts to content.
I hope some listen.
Well, they seem to think that consumers are obligated to buy/watch their stuff.
But the fact of the matter is that you don't need movies, TV, or music to live. You could completely unplug from conventional media, and chances are that your quality of living isn't going to decrease by very much.
So you won't see the latest episode of "CSI", or your girlfriend/wife won't see her "Desperate Housewives". Can't see the latest big-budget, big-explosion b-grade hollywood movie... Can't listen to the latest over-produced over-hyped flash-in-the-pan CD...
Who cares? Sure, all of that stuff is cheap entertainment, but can anyone honestly argue that it is necessary?
Every time my local cable company has raised their rates, I reduce the number of channels I order to compensate. There's a bit of withdrawl at first, but after a few days, I forget that I'm even missing something. In the longrun, if they clamp down on DRM, Broadcast Flags, etc then I'm just not going to go through the effort of getting their product, and I'll find other ways to entertain myself.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
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
Help stop spectrum theft.
Wrap your house in tinfoil.
It's been a long time.
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
cartel
Pronunciation Key (kär-tl)
n.
1. A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.
2. An official agreement between governments at war, especially one concerning the exchange of prisoners.
3. A group of parties, factions, or nations united in a common cause; a bloc.
I'd say 1 and 3 are pretty close when you talk about the RIAA / MPAA. It may not be the illegal cartel by the FTA definition, a la OPEC, but it can still be accurately classified as one by definition.
The industry you refer to is the entire global market, and yes, there are smaller producers out there, just like with oil (if we can continue to use that comparison). But to say that the MPAA doesn't try to regulate market conditions for movies is a little short-sighted.