Manage updates with the Download App
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the statutory authority to issue a regulation requiring the implementation of the so-called broadcast flag in digital television devices by July 1, 2005.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not rule against the idea of a broadcast flag. It only ruled that the FCC does not have authority from Congress to issue such a regulation.
The answer is simple. I want to make certain that the American people will continue to have the opportunity to see our movies and television shows on free television in the digital age.
The digital era presents great opportunities and great challenges. The opportunities come with the high-quality, high-resolution pictures that greatly enhance the viewing pleasure of the consumer. The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates.
Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television.
Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet. The sole purpose and effect of
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.
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.
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.
This is the opinion of Dan Glickman, the Motion Picture Association of America chief, concerning broadcast flags. For an opposing opinion, read media attorney Jim Burger's column.
Biography
Dan Glickman is chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America.
57 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Fair Use should be limited to "any device owned by a single household" or something to that effect. This includes ANY technology chosen to do so and ANY media form.
Prosecute file swappers if you need to, continue with the Cease-and-desist orders but leave our consumer protection alone.
In all cases I have seen one or the other gets their rights trampled on.
Here is an idea. Instead of putting a broadcast flag on devices that would possibly infringe upon Fair Use why not just encode the user/owners name into the media and then if it is distributed through an illegal channel that person can be tracted down easier. Of course real criminals are always going to find a way around any technology, but it's an idea.
To do any more makes it all pretty much worthless for us, the ones that have to pay for the programming to start with from Cable or Sat. The ones that have to pay for the HDTV's, etc. etc. Where is the value for us? There isn't any. They want us to run out and spend tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds a month so they can do something that will never ever work and that is stop all copying of their property.
Well, I for one refuse to spend a f'ing cent any on of this crap to protect these greedy bastards. Anyone that does is a f'ing idiot and since HDTV sales seem to be doing pretty good there are a lot of f'ing idiots out there apparently.
Robert
Why on earth promote more government and why put more infringements on the consumer?
How about the Motion Picture Association of America stop paying Danny Glover $10,000,000.00 per movie and turn those savings into something good for the consumer, Mr. Good?
How about we stop paying Bill Cosby $10,000,000.00 for his voice-over in a movie and turn that into something good for the consumer, Mr. Good?
Irony has its place in all aspects of life - what is GOOD for the consumer is NOT paying $5.00 for a 32oz. soda or $4.00 for a 10oz bag of chocolate. What's good for the consumre Mr. Good - you tell me!!
Jim Ryder
When the Judge ruled against the FCC imposing the broadcast flag on the American public, he called them arrogant. With good reason. The MPAA tried to pull a fast one on us. They had tried, and failed miserably to get congress to enact such legislation. So, they tried to slip it in the back door. The MPAA is acting like a petulant child, upset for being caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
The MPAA should be punished for their actions regarding the broadcast flag. And, through no ones action, other than the MPAAs ignorance they are being punished. The punishment was demonstrated this week. 6 hours before "Revenge of the Sith" premiered in theaters it was released on file sharing networks. The average consumer is not the problem, and would only have been inconvenienced by the broadcast flag. Meanwhile the real pirates are stealing Hollywood's best, and the MPAA is helpless to stop them, because they have ignored the real problem.
Instead of trying to force technology to fit their outdated business model, the MPAA needs to adapt to new technology. That's what successful companies do. If they can not adapt they deserve to fail.
Instead of belly-aching about technology they should embrace it. Remember when mp3's were going to be the death of the music industry? Now Apple is printing money thanks to the iPod and iTunes.
To seems to me that your just trying to blame other people for your problems. You really need to get a grip.
"preserving the magic of movies", nor will the
absence of a boradcast flag "make it difficult"
to provide content in the digital age.
Magic left the movies long ago -- about the same
time common sense, creativity, heart, and
quality fled Hollywood like rats on a sinking
ship. And there's nothing at all that makes
distribution "more difficult" -- not even more
difficult to justify to your member companies
who will distribute with or without the flag
because if they don't distribute their product,
they simply don't make any money at all.
The truth of the matter is that the MPAA sees
digital distribution as the ideal opportunity to
seize control of both distribution and
presentation in a way that wasn't feasible (or
considered legal) previously. By legislating
away the present liberties of the audience, you
can sell those same liberties back for a premium
and restrictions cloaked in fine print. It's
becoming increasingly clear that the MPAA sees
legislating behavioral controls on the public
and restricting technology is perceived as
having a much greater return on investment than
developing new business models, controlling
budgets, or engaging in traditional best
practices for business.
Here's a what-if scenario for you... What if the
MPAA does opt-out of digital broadcasts?
Broadcasters won't stop broadcasting, and
viewers won't stop viewing. Non-MPAA aligned
groups and individuals will become the principle
source of content -- and you and I have both
seen some of that content and it's amazing the
quality you can eke out of shoestring budget
with some mid-range digital camcorders and
decent software.
No, in the absence of a broadcast flag Hollywood
will keep churning out hot-and-cold running
tripe for fear that they will be tacitly
abdicating their collective media throne. The
MPAA should consider the court's rebuke of the
FCC a warning that scrutiny of their legislative
agenda is going mainstream, and if the general
public begins to understand what's at stake
before the MPAA succeeds in completely screwing
them, there will be hell to pay.
The broadcast flag, like all DRM schemes in use today would do nothing to impede people who are going to illegally redistribute copyrighted content. Any scheme that would be effective against the "pirates" would be unusable for the average NASCAR watching AOLer.
Of course the MPAA knows this full well, all the broadcast flag does, indeed all that it's designed to do is impede the ability for Joe consumer to exercise their fair use rights.
Naturally the MPAA won't admit to this agenda, heck in your article you can't even bring yourself to utter the very words "fair use", your avoidance of the fair use issue makes it all the more obvious of your intent to impede (and eventually destroy) any ability to exercise these rights.
So go peddle your story to your lackeys in congress, no doubt some more campagin donations will get them to believe it, or at least do what you tell then to.
As a consumer - one seriously considering getting an HD set myself. Why should I? I CAN live with out your "magical content." If you are going to tell me that I have to have all this stuff and pay all this money for content, then tell me whether or not I can record it, or how long the recording is good for... guess what? I deem you don't need my money all that bad.
Buh Bye.
Neither a legally-mandated flag nor hardcore cryptographic protection will deter actual pirates - organised criminals who are in it for the money. They will find a way to bypass any copy-protection, even if they have to go through the analogue hole.
As for redistribution over the internet, it only takes one person to upload one unprotected copy of a film or TV programme to end its DRM protection.
All you ultimately do by trying to impose unworkable and unwarranted controls on media content is annoy and inconvenience honest consumers (your customers). It will have no effect whatever on the dishonest.
The media industry should concentrate on offering its consumers a better product at a better value. That means musicians have to play concerts, and films have to be shown at the cinema.
Lie. What protections does your content have with today's NTSC analog broadcasts? Absolutely NONE. Because, we enjoy FAIR USE COPYING as consumers here in the United States of America. WE decide what we want to copy and when we want to copy it, NOT YOU.
Glickman says: "Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet...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."
Lie. The broadcast flag or CCI Copy Control Information, can be set for 3 values: copy once, copy never, copy freely. A legitimate receiver MUST (or is supposed to) obey the CCI. Therefore, if YOU set YOUR content to COPY NEVER, my receiver "must not" copy your content. THIS IS NOT FAIR USE -- You have determined what I can copy and when I can copy it.
This has nothing to do with the Internet either! The broadcast flag is EASILY circumvented -- but, hey that's against the DMCA, so it makes it ILLEGAL to COPY content by circumventing the broadcast flag. Again -- YOU (and the government thanks to the DMCA) control what I copy when I copy it, not ME -- and that is NOT FAIR USE!
Glickman says: " 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."
Lie. Satellite & cable use ENCRYPTION. The broadcast flag is SO MUCH WEAKER in terms of protection. CCI can be circumvented easier than crypto -- but both are AGAINST THE LAW, thanks to the DMCA. ITS NOT THE SAME PROTECTION.
Over-the-air content is pretty LAME anyway, thats why the majority of people subscribe to cable and satellite. WHO CARES ABOUT YOUR CONTENT broadcast over the air? Its old and stale by the time it reaches the rabbit ears anyway!
Glickman, the MPAA, and the authors of the DMCA are paranoid control freaks hell bent on REDUCING AND EVENTUALLY ELIMINATING fair use copying that we have enjoyed in the US for YEARS.
and their aint nothing we can do but ***** about it on forums like this...ram it down our throats.
By denying us the option to copy or timeshift programming, the MPAA is "Saving Free Television" Bull-puckey!
The real issue here is about control and money. With such digital protected content put in place by a willing (ie. sleeping) public, the MPAA and RIAA through their lobbyists and political stooges will have the tools installed into our own digital radios, HDTV sets & Computers. They would then have the means to wring out every last dime for content that we currently view over analog broadcasts for free.
The irony is that the digital revolution is ending up to enslave us to the interests of Big Hollywood and Big Music instead of freeing us.
Broadcast Flag = Doubleplusungoodthink!
difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball
games on free television." But you do not tell us why you believe
that. I get the feeling you're talking at me, not to me.
Second, these types of protections have already left a bad taste.
For example, not long ago I wanted to show my kids something
quick that we had been discussing. My wife was trying to get us
out the door, but we had a minute, so I popped the DVD into the
player. It starts playing all the junk (sorry, that's how I see it) at
the beginning. So I hit the "Menu" button.
"Operation not permitted."
So I hit the "Next Chapter" button.
"Operation not permitted."
So I try the "Fast Foreward" button...
Do I have to say it? In total disgust, since we have no more time,
I hit the "Stop" button.
"Operation not permitted."
"What!? I'm not even permitted to stop it? Who gave those clowns
control of my remote?" is exactly what I said aloud, with my kids
present. I then turned off the power switch, conceding that was
all I could control in my own living room.
You want me to believe the broadcast flag will be any better?
And you can't even articulate a good reason why its needed?
You've got a lot of work ahead of you to convince me, and end
user, that the broadcast flag is worth the cost of more
legislation.
So, I have to use "unauthorized DVD playing software" on my laptop. Boy, it's nice - when I put the DVD in, it plays like any regular movie file. I can skip around wherever I want, and I can take screenshots for presentations.
It's refreshing to use Free Software that doesn't have to be rubber-stamped by the MPAA or the RIAA, as in the case of Apple's iTunes program. Free Software developers write their own multimedia engines that are built to be flexible, not encumbered with restrictions. My software does what I tell it to; I can't say the same of my DVD player or my brother's Windows laptop.
(-: And as a side note, if you're worried about how easy to use Linux is, you should check out Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, or other modern Linux operating system products. They're swell. :-)
With our ability to record shows, we can also skip over/edit out *the commercials*. Why should I pay a large amount of money to a broadcast network to run my commercial when I know that John Q. Public isn't going to see it anyway? Can you imagine how this affects the networks revenues? Why, they might not be able to pay Hollywood all those millions for the broadcast rights to the movies! No wonder every one wants to control the content we'll be allowed to see. Isn't that right, Mr. Glickman.
I say screw the advertisers.
Robert
That is the issue here. The RIAA and MPAA think that the average American has lots of money sitting around that we just aren't spending and that if they give us something to spend it on, we will.
This same thing is happening all over in every line of business. Why is broadband so expensive? We don't even get that fast of a speeds. 388kbps upload is a feaking joke.
I remember back in the old days, when I was a kid, I had a savings account. I didn't keep that much money in it, because I was a kid, but I could watch the amount go up every month due to interest. Put some money in the bank now and you will watch it go away. Why, because banks nickle and dime your account until all of the money is gone.
This guy wants to charge us to watch freaking TV shows. Guess what, that is what those annoying advertisments are for. To bring us free TV. If you want us to pay for this crap, get rid of the ads.
It's getting as bad as PRO WRESTLING and American IDOL.
Now, if this were to become a plagiarism issue, where local idiots were to pretend they *originally* shot the footage, then we'd be talking. But if the video is already broadcast in the freaking atmosphere, then being worried about noncommercial rebroadcast or retransmission or replay (remember your VCR? TiVo?) is pretty offensive to me as a consumer.
And if he claims to be worried about the commercial side, this is a red herring. We already have law for this. It's called "copyright." Title 17, USC., just in case he forgot. So if you commercially rebroadcast or retransmit or replay his stuff (especially if you resell it), they'll slap you with a lawsuit so deep you'll bleed.
And what is with this protecting the "magic of the movies" rhetoric I've been hearing lately? It's as if he thinks some guy in Ohio downloading a movie will worsen the sound quality when I go see a movie in the theater. It's bizarre.
Your reasoning here is way off track. You've got to have a decent income to be a pirate - You gotta have money to pay for a broadband connection to the Internet. You've gotta have money to buy a pretty fast PC with a large hard drive or drives. An you'd probably want a DVD burner to backup files and keep your HD free for more files, and that takes money too. Or you've got to have a means to get movies/programs from the airwaves to DVD or digital files. I doubt very seriously that people that don't subscribe to cable or satellite have any of these things.
And very few stations broadcast over the air anymore compared to the overwhelming options available on either cable or satellite, so I doubt what few movies and shows are broadcast over the airwaves would pose a serious financial loss to the MPAA.
What the MPAA should be doing with working with foreign governments to stop people that copy your movies and sell them on the strees of Hong Kong for $1 each. That's where the real piracy problem is, Mr. Glickman, not in the living rooms of average American citizens who want to make a copy to view at their leisure.
You might want to rethink your article. . .we aren't as ignorant as you think we are.
you strongly emphasize that without copy-protection on broadcast tv, that the tv companies will find it hard.
Tv studios, especially ones that broadcast via antenna, make almost all of thier money from thier advertisements, much like a newspaper makes money off of thiers. As far as i know,they pay the same amount in royalties, wether one person watches , or several.
In addition to this, often the ones that DO broadcast to antennas have somewhat of a limited budget,as opposed to ones on the Digitial cable/sattelite networks, who have the funding provided by user subscriptions, AND the ads. Limited budget usually means,in effect, a limited variety. so, really, most of what you will see on these stations are reruns, or showings of movies that made thier way out onto television 2 or three years ago.
so, if it's "free" for the average consumer, why are you restricting it?
you people at the MPAA that are in on this, are not interested in the consumer here.... you just want a monopoly, on something you can't currently control.
So, here I see people/companies offering a product for sale & setting the rules for the sale, including - the purchaser doesn't have the right to redistribute (whether for free OR for profit).
Aside from the software/movie/music/data/information world, what other industry allows the customer to set the rules for the sale? In just about every other business transaction, you accept the terms or the sale doesn't happen. Sometimes you negotiate a new deal, that the seller agrees to (or the sale doesn't happen).
But I can't think of a single industry where the consumer attempts to set the rules for the purchase - if I sold movies or music or whatever................I wouldn't. I'd close up shop & go live on a mountain or something. If I conceive something, that no-one else thought of, but I couldn't set the conditions of the sale, I would have no motive to sell.
All DRM is fatally flawed, how do you allow content to be played without also allowing it to be copied. Bits are bits, either the DRM is easily bypassed, or gets copied and still allows playback on another machine. Why spend so much money on a flawed DRM system, when it will only prevent copies for a few hours. This money can be better spent creating truly original content that people will want to watch. The last 15 out of 20 new releases I have heard about are Remakes, sequil or prequil, or just plain retreading of the same story line.
It doesn't help when the content leaks out before the DRM is added. (I. E. SWIII ROTS)
I want my replay HDTV!
Exo
-
Well, let's hope it looks "less" appealing. Copyright law is now totally overbalanced to protect global IP monopoly interests. For Dan and his cohorts, the idea that consumers have rights is inconceivable.
-
Ah. That reminds me of bad guy number one in the Princess Bride, and we all know what happened there.
-
If there is one flag that needs to be burned, it is the broadcast flag.
-
www.litenverden.org
what MPAA movie was compelling for me to watch on TV in the
last 4-5 years. MPAA folks are focused on the wrong problem.
"Magic of Movies" -- you could start by avoiding the yet another
remake, or sequel. Of course, even assuming you decide to
broadcast a movie, it is loaded with so many commercials that
there is ZERO MAGIC.
I'm sorry -- the MPAA can take it's ball and go home. That's
certainly better than letting them usurp our fair use rights. And
who knows how stifling this will be for technological innovation.
This is about GREED, GREED and more GREED at the expense of
individual, honest consumers. The argument is not unlike the
copy-protection issue with RIAA (where they want to decide
when, where, and what you can copy the music you just paid
for). And frankly, I'm sick of it.
You guys aren't producing content that is worth putting up with
this kind of arrogance.
It's funny that you mention the cable companies like they are the model to follow. Originally cable companies WERE the pirates, pirating and rebroadcasting to it's customers broadcast television. The industry kicked and screamed at first, but once it figured out how to generate revenue from this new medium the cable co "pirates" became a legitimate and accepted business model.
Threatening to take away content, especially in an advertiser driven business model of broadcast TV, would be cutting off your hose to spite your face.
IF there's less content to watch, there's less people watching it, the value of advertising on that content goes down.
Now if you/networks/producers were smart they'd realize their cheese is being moved, embrace this change, and find a way to capitalize on it.
*sigh*
currently resides in my DVD player: "Gooooooooooood". Then
maybe the MPAA, and the stations will stop making B movie
crap. Even somehow IF the broadcast flag is implimented there
will ALWAYS be people like me that find SOME WAY around it, or
through it. Just like the pittyful, and illegal attempt at encrypting
DVDs to violate our fair use rights. Someone, if not me, will
break it. And there you are. Im going to give you a peice of
advice Glickman if you read this. And I quote myself, "If it can be
seen, it can be copied." And you will not, and cannot, stop it.
Reguardless of the number of senators you have in your pocket.
Not everyone lives in this stupid copywrite controlled country,
and for those like me, that do, %98 of us will continue to copy
what we want. You can't sue everyone Glickman. You don't have
near the money, or resources. Update your outdated business
model, and people will stop. Stop asking $20 for a DVD, and
make them available online for people to pay a few bucks to
download it, and make it available to ALL platforms, not just
windoze, but Linux, and Macs too. Personaly I use Slackware
Linux, and a Beige Mac running Panther. And make them un-
crippled (Digital Restriction Managed), so that people will
actually WANT to use your services. My 2 cents.
You've bragged about your prowess as a thief (Revenge of the Sith is on your DVD), I sure don't see what moral high ground you've staked out. Fact is, you give credence to their arguments and reasoning.