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?
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.
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.
'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?
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.
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.
The EU introduced the EUCD which is similer to the DMCA.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
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.
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.
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.
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