MPAA CEO Dan Glickman on the Broadcast Flag 336
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.'"
I personally want to call his bluff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Take your freaking lame ass ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sort of like... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sort of like... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an implementation detail. Besides, most people either figured it out, or just pressed "record" when they wanted to tape something.
Well, really hard anyway. I'll grant that. Though I do remember editing out the commercials (by pausing the recording) on many movies taped off TV as a child, so minor editing is possible.
Tapes did not stand up well to repeated viewings.
Maybe, but my family has many movies we "stole" off TV that have been watched many times and they're still viewable. Maybe not perfect, but still viewable.
Broadcast films were censored, cut to fit pre-defined time slots, and were otherwise abused.
And digital TV with a broadcast flag will be different how?
Now wait a minute, (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the broadcast flag won't work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why the broadcast flag won't work (Score:2)
Really? They didn't ram through the DMCA for their own interest by shopping it in international treaties? It wasn't software companies screaming the loudest for this stuff, it was the entertainment companies.
Ahh, well, we will just omit that..
you can't be serious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:you can't be serious (Score:2)
Re:you can't be serious (Score:2)
What .gif images???
[OT] submit images (Score:3, Insightful)
They do. That's where karma comes in. I think the karma cap is (or at least was) 50. It's not THAT hard to post 50 times a funny/insightful/interesting post.
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.
Re:you can't be serious (Score:2)
and I simply see a future where they refuse to embrace the technology that can work as well for them as it does for us. A future where they continue to persecute all of their own customers and cling to an antiquated business model, even when they're trying to update, they still wanna hang onto their old methods. They could use the internet to expand their base, and prosper, but they don't inste
Re:you can't be serious (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two kinds of people who tape things. The kind who, duh, want to watch it later, which I hope no one even vaguely objects to at this time.
And the people who keep a copy of every show. And you know what you call those people? Fans. They're the people who promote the show to others, they're the people who buy the DVDs, they account for a hell of a lot of revenue.
Idle threats... (Score:2)
Most "magic" has more utility than filling your pockets with gobs of money.
Nothing will stop them from making money. If they can make 37 cents from showing their 10 year old movies on TV, they will do that. On the other hand, if they can make 40 cents by not showing them on broadcast TV and just re-release them on DVD every few years, they will do that.
Re:Idle threats... (Score:2)
I really like to think of it is as lack of an original idea.
Next! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Next! (Score:2)
Re:Next! (Score:2)
Dear Mr, Glickman. . . (Score:2, Interesting)
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 b
So predictable (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re:So predictable (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
mythTV et al? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:mythTV et al? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:mythTV et al? (Score:2)
*Shrug* The DMCA would probably still apply (unfortunately) as it's not about breaking encryption it's about circumventing copy controls.
e.
BTW: Be sure to Contact Your Representative [eff.org] to tell them where to stick the BF/MPAA legislation.
Take yer ball and stay home! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Take yer ball and stay home! (Score:2)
I have some suggestions.
1) get a job which doesnt require selling your soul to el diablo.
(this means a job at microsoft is out too
2) if you can't 1), then commit suicide immediately and make the world a better place.
the faster broadcast TV dies, the better off the world will be.
Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:3, Insightful)
The counterargument is that without the protection of the broadcast flag, this company will be pirated right out of business, so that instead of a thriving market, there will be a barren wasteland.
There are holes in this argument - one is the assumption that the broa
Re:Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:3)
Despite piracy (witness how much money the DVDs and CDs are rak
Re:Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:2)
Re:Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:2)
Glickman is president of the MPAA. The MPAA is a cartel.
What you're describing is the way free markets deal with cartels. The cartel itself will almost certainly be smart enough to back away from this position if they aren't able to buy a law requiring it, just as, for instance, OPEC has backed away on several occasions from positions that would have broken their cartel if they had been held.
Of course, I personally would prefer it if the
Re:Benefits of a Free Market System (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pu
Who needs who more ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Who needs who more ? (Score:2)
You make the point that the if the vast majority of people don't care about the broadcast flag then it could be easily introduced. Your absolutely right, and however much I may dislike this restriction if I am not in the majority then I will have to live with it.
But I think there will
don't make me laugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Uhhh, no. (Score:2)
Fact is, all the producers and actors pray that their show is appealing enough to generate syndication deals that gurantee them a huge, long-term paycheck. DVD sales also get them a nice chunk of change.
Fact is, the only reason many programs get their big money before broadcast is it's too soon for the people with money to see how much the program sucks. It's pretty safe to assume they aren't
What!? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Please please please... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Go ahead, take your ball and go home. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Go ahead, take your ball and go home. (Score:2)
Oh, wait...
Re:Go ahead, take your ball and go home. (Score:3, Funny)
What you really mean to say is " The more you tighten your grip, the more [movies] will slip through your fingers "...
Re:Go ahead, take your ball and go home. (Score:2)
Is that a choice? I don't know. Hollywood holds the rest of the world hostage with it's content. What the content providers are worried about as you so rightly point out is that one day everybody else will hold them hostage dictating that if they don't release their co
Taking their marbles (Score:3, Informative)
</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.
Re:Taking their marbles (Score:2)
DivX was killed by cheap chinese DVD players. Period.
Continuing his thought (Score:2)
"Oh... except what is arguably the most important component, the consumer who we need to view or buy our content. But we're pretty sure they're sheep, with no input on the matter, and little ability to see through my rich euphamisms such as 'protect the ma
More foot stomping... (Score:2)
Personally, I think prevention is not the way to go here, because it presumes that all consumers are thieves. It would be far better from a "YRO" point of view to equip law enforcement with better tools to find those who are violating copyrights. They're choosing the easier way out, because it's easier to try
Television is BAD for you. (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Television is BAD for you. (Score:2)
Surely television can be viewed from a critical point of view and in an active manner, can it not?
argh (Score:2)
"Good"? (Score:2)
Come again? The greatest irony of all is that the high-tech home cinema with surround sound and high definition arrives when there is less and less to justify it. I'll worry when they start "flagging" books.
crybabies (Score:2)
public: naaa..we like to not have to sit through 15 minutes of commercials per hour of tv.
DAN: But the studios will suffer because of our outdated business model
public: crybaby, go talk to the RIAA about outdated business models. Times change. You didn't hear the radio trying to legislate themselves jobs when TV came out and got popular in the late 50s. And look, 50 years later, there's still radio, and now, even DIGITAL radio and you don't see the RIAA griping about it
Conspiracy Theory #413 (Score:2)
This moment of black helicopter zen brought to you by Slashdot.
So someone else will make billions (Score:2)
So what would change? (Score:2)
--Ender
more magic for Glickman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Puh-leeze . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Go right ahead mr. glickman. (Score:2)
go ahead mr. glickman. take your ball and go home. quite frankly nothing would make me happier.
you can go take your "survivor", "american idol", "desperate housewives", and shove it. i don't give a shit about this inane drivel you try to ram down our throats, and I care even less to see this banality in "hi def".
the sooner you and the industry you represent burns in hell, the better off humanity will be.
Reverse Logic (Score:2, Insightful)
Redefining the debate by trying to change the terms via brainwashing seems to be the misguided corporate way. Throughout history, Governments, Businesses and other Instituti
Please refrain from misrepresentations (Score:3, Interesting)
"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
Consumers won't suffer (Score:2, Interesting)
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
I know what I'll do (Score:2)
This fight needs to shift to fundamentals (Score:2)
Re:This fight needs to shift to fundamentals (Score:2)
If there were some way for Hollyweird to structure this such that the only way to "remember" something long term (ie: record it for now) would be to watch the program in real time then we would prob
Bram Cohen on a panel at the 2004 Billboard awards (Score:2)
HDNet rebr
A letter to MPAA CEO Dan Glickman (Score:2)
Don't push your luck buddy. We're already tired of your wares. Ticket sales are down across the board, and so is TV viewership among men 18-30, the most valuable demogrpahic.
Your marketing people are no doubt trying very hard to figure out why this is, but in your hear you know why... Its because everything you're doing is SHIT. Your writers are terrible, your plots hackney, your characters stiff, your actors couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. And yet you expect us to pay $9 for a m
Biting the hand that feeds (Score:2)
Its not about piracy... (Score:2)
The MPAA (which these days probobly covers most american made TV entertainment as well as movies) wants to stop people from being able to record a TV show onto their PVR and watching it later (fast-forwarding all the ads). And from recording something off the TV and keeping it to watch again and again instead of buying the DVD.
Just remember, anything capable of recieving video signals (TVs, VCRs, DVD Recorders, PVRs, Video Capture cards and probobly more) will have to deal with the flag.
There Are Other Solutions (Score:2)
hawk nails it -- they can't take away their ball (Score:2)
I bet, dollars to donuts, if the networks start getting better/more deals for "product placement" and other nuevo-advertising AND they figure out how to account for internet downloaders to count as additional eyeballs/ratings, they'd change their tune pretty quickly.
Remember folks, originally cable companies (the group being lauded in the article) were originally pirates of b
Consumers unite (Score:2)
OK (Score:2)
Then go.
This same tired argument is used by the airlines from time to time as well. "If government doesn't give us 52 billion dollars, we'll close up shop and then no one will have service." The reality is that if all the companies in the MPAA went away right this minute, the vacuum would be filled immediately as dozens of smaller studios suddendly received a torrent of investment capital. From the customers'
The movies will be shown where (Score:2)
sounds familiar (Score:2)
Hey, Satan, What's the big deal, guy? (Score:2)
So how does he excuse the past 20+ years of absolute garbage on TV, all without the presence of the broadcast flag?
More importantly, though, if the mere existence of the broadcast flag will make him happy, then fine, he can have his little flag.
I won't use a receiver that honors it... And when the housewives of America learn they can't record their soaps anymore, I suspect even Joe and Jane Schmoe will go out of their w
remember the point of broadcast TV (Score:2)
Now, will it be quality programming? Is there quality programming now? People decry the lack of quality on TV, yet quote Homer Simpson at every opportunity. Gimme a break. If you like what you see, expect more of the same.
Look, it's very simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
We need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternate Headline (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought they were already all cancelled and replaced by unreality shows.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
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]
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, the MPAA isn't competing just with movies, they're competing with anything that could be on TV. Think ab
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 w
Who's television is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:2)
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:2)
You can smile smugly now, but don't think for a minute that there's not a movement from the same content producers to get the European Union broadcasters to tweak the DVB spec for your own UK/European flavored broadcast flag.
Although you guys do have it a little bit better as the BBC seems to be embracing internet VOD distribution, but I digress.
e.
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who's content is it? (Score:3, Funny)
Wrap your house in tinfoil.
Re:Utter rubbish (Score:2)
Exactly. By their logic there should be a thriving pirate film TV-rip market in the UK, hell when a film is shown on the BBC you don't even have adverts to take out!
Re:Who suffers? (Score:2)
Yes, the consumers will be the ones to suffer. Oh what, we don't have 500+ channels of digital sewage already? We'll be getting less?
Where do I sign up?
Re:Oh now they want to use scare tactics (Score:2)