Comments on: Why the broadcast flag should go forward

MPAA chief Dan Glickman says that without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movie or baseball games on free TV.

[jamie.p.walsh]

We want Fair Use in writing!!

Mr. Glickman, the American people don't want to be forced to obey legislation that gives the MPAA, nor the RIAA, nor any other Industry Association the freedom to bend what they consider "Fair Use".

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.

Yep... All about the broadcast industry

The MPAA, RIAA, and the NAB talk and talk about the availability of content... yada yada. But 'Fair Use' is a concept they cannot or will not deal with. The allegation of the piracy problem does not mean that personal copying can be made illegal. The end does NOT justify the means.
Prosecute file swappers if you need to, continue with the Cease-and-desist orders but leave our consumer protection alone.

[xpgeek11]

your principal concern ...

Is making more money at the expense of peoples rights you greedy corporate rat. MPAA, RIAA, I got a 4 letter word for you too, starts with an F.

[System Tyrant]

No one wins

It really sucks that on one hand you have the consumers right to Fair Use and on the other you have the producers right to protect their content.

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.

The problem is...

The problem is that their content is about as protected as you can get it. They have all of the copyright laws on their side, they have the DMCA on their side, they have the blood suck parasites that run this country on their side. They are well protected.

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

[mythology8]

Mr. Good - your idea is Bad!

Sir,
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

Ignorant Arrogance

I don't have much good to say about the MPAA. Their actions are both ignorant, and arrogant. About the nicest thing I can say about Mr Glickman is that he's a cry baby.
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.

And another thing ...

6 hours before "Revenge of the Sith" was released in theatres it was available on the internet and it still managed to rake in nearly $160 million in four days. But I guess they badly missed the $50 in ticket money from the 5 people that actually downloaded it. I must say that I was anxious to read this article. I thought "finally I'm going to hear from the horse's mouth why the industry thinks it needs the broadcast flags." And what did we get? We got a lot of double-speak and platitudes. They need the broadcast flags to keep sports and movies on free tv. Why??!!! Did I miss the actual explanation? Or are we sheep just supposed to take their word for it?

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.

Pathetic Excuses

If "Revenge Of The Sith" was available to be downloaded 6 hours before the movie was released? That sounds like an internal problem. with as much security the had on that release, it it had to have come from the inside. Mr. Glickman, maybe you should look at YOUR companies to find out what?s going on. To start with, secure your servers, belt down the presses, and ensure security in the theaters. And I'm not talking about video cameras either.

To seems to me that your just trying to blame other people for your problems. You really need to get a grip.

[George Cole]

failed miserably

http://www.analogstereo.com/acura_csx_owners_manual.htm

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we...

The MPAA doesn't give a tinker's cuss about
"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.

[raitchison]

Nobody's buying your story

At least not in this audience.

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.

My Consumer Attitude

My take on this whole thing is this. I have co-workers who are big into the HD world. Spent thousands of dollars on televisions, extra money for digital cable, in some cases extra HD programming etc. They are also doing some bleeding edge work with recording HD. Using computers for the most part. They have had to petition the cable companies using an FCC regulation as a stick to get the cable companies to provide boxes with appropriate connections and ports turned on to provide recording capabilities. All of this is legal. The rub is that some channels, Dicovery Theater being the one I was hearing about. Have a flag set that prevents the channel from being recorded. I have also heard of 'Tivo' type flags that are only going to allow the content to be watched for a certain length of time.

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.

[duncangibb]

All DRM is doomed

No DRM technology is ever going to be effective, for the simple reason that anything that can be played can be copied.

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.

CNet should distribute

All the replys and comments have been excellant to both articles and should be forwarded to the MPAA, RIAA, FCC and to all members in the Federal Congress. It might help to blunt the Hollywood Studios and Recording Labels lobbying influence and paid political contributions to our congress. A desperate need for some reality on the issue and the feelings of the American Public, Consumer should have a voice.

CCI, Fair Use, and DMCA collide

Glickman says: "Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television"

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.

Broadcast flag doubletalk ungoodthink

The thing that really bothers me about issues of copy protection, digital rights management and the broadcast flag is how they are saying that they are "protecting" the public and the public good from misuse. Mr. Glickman's assertion that the broadcast flag will preserve free television reminds me of the story about a soldier in Vietnam. When asked by a journalist why a village was torched and destroyed, the soldier replied, "So we could save it, sir!"

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!

[-Machingon-]

He's Bluffing!

It's a bluff! They're not going to pull movies, much less sports, from the broadcast channels! They make tons of money this way! If someone wants to pirate their content, they'll hack the device to ignore the flag. The flag will only hurt legitimate users.

[taznar]

Industry-User disconnect

You say, "Without proper protections, it will be increasingly
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.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

If only you were using Linux

The MPAA doesn't license DVD playing software for my Linux laptop. I run GNU/Linux on an iBook, so I can't even use the DVD players distributed in commercial box sets of Linux.

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. :-)

[George Cole]

proper protections

http://www.analogstereo.com/acura_el_owners_manual.htm

[Keenan]

broadcast flag

There is one issue that everyone seems to have overlooked.

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.

So...

So... the butcher the movies anyways. They cut them up, compress them down, they scrunch up the credits, the have mini-commercials come up after the program comes back on after a commercial break. The first two just so they can load it up with commercials. Then to make matters worse the bleep out or replaces words that they feel might offend someone. Never mind that if they are going to be offended by the word ass or **** or something like that that the probably wouldn't be watching the movie to start with.

I say screw the advertisers.

Robert

[SteveBarry687]

Finally

I have gotten to see the face of evil. You freaking bastard and your ilk should be strung up. Here is a clue. Most people in the US don't have all of the damn "disposable income" that you think we do.

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.

Why would I wanna watch STERIOD heads?

Pro Sports is over-hyped.

It's getting as bad as PRO WRESTLING and American IDOL.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Protect from rebroadcast? It's already broadcast *for free*!

"The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates," he wrote.

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.

[corvinm]

Serious logic flaw in this article. . .

Call me crazy here Mr. Glickman, but why would you be concerned about the broadcast flag for the 15% demographic that don't subscribe to cable TV or satellite? Surely you don't think that the people in this category pay for blazing fast Internet connections and have high end PC's with massive hard drives to host large media files, but simply don't pay for cable or satellite? Or do you?

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.

[benwolfe54]

It's all a joke

I just got a "legitmate" DVD concert as a gift, can't play it on my computer with out an illeagle decoder because of "copyright issues". The RIAA only pays out about 10% of what it collects on behalf of authors/performers. If the recording and movie industry revenues are down, why don't they produce some stuff that is worth paying for. I havn't purchased a video or music cd for 10 years and proud of it man.

[George Cole]

recording and movie industry

http://www.analogstereo.com/acura_vigor_owners_manual.htm

if it's free television", what's the sense of restricting it?

i,like alot of people who have posted here today, Mr.Glickman and i don't agree with your logic, or your motives, one bit.

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.

whops... typos.

before anyone says anything,yes, i KNOW i messed upon the first sentance. =(

It's my ball.

Did anyone (else) grow up in a world, where the kid that owned the ball made the rules ?

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.