[opendtv] Re: Wright Issues Call To Copyright Action

At 9:30 AM -0700 10/30/04, Dale Kelly wrote:
>My mistake was in using the word "employed", you are clearly a consultant.
>Does such a title somehow anoint you to be an objective observer?

I guess that depends on how a person actually uses their role as a 
consultant, and the track record they have established over the years 
in terms of objectivity.

>You do write a monthly article for Broadcast Engineering magazine, which is
>CEA advertising supported .

Really?

Yest there are a number of advertisers that ALSO have CE divisions, 
but frankly, any CE company is wasting their money if they think they 
are going to reach consumers of CE products via Broadcast 
Engineering. And I have absolutely no connection to the advertising 
side of the business. The ONLY "influence" I get are the press 
releases sent to me directly, or forwarded to me by the magazine's 
editors. We publish an editorial calendar every year, and many PR 
firms (and manufacturers) try to make suggestions about including 
their products in any given topic. Anyone who reads my columns know 
that I am not a shill for any manufacturer or product.

As far as any relationship or favoritism for the CE industry or the 
CEA, I'd suggest you look at what I have written over the years. 
Let's just say that my relationship with the CEA has been luke warm 
at best over the years.

It is true that my opinions about the copyright issue tend to be 
closer to those of the CEA than the mass media conglomerates. This 
should not come as any surprise. The CE business is strongly affected 
by copyright law; the CEA has been quite adamant about protecting 
Fair Use rights.

If you look at my work in this area, you will not find much if any 
"promotion" of the CEA or their views. I have been consistent in my 
belief that our copyright and patent laws have been abused by the 
special interests who help finance two billion dollar election 
cycles, like the one we are in at the moment. I have been consistent 
in my contentions that it is completely unwarranted and unnecessary 
to implement the content management restrictions that the media 
moguls are lobbying for.  I have been consistent in my contentions 
that the current perceived problems with piracy are the public's 
reaction to the way they have been abused by the content oligopoly.

But MOST IMPORTANT, I have been consistent in my opinions that there 
are simple technical solutions to these problems. But more important, 
rampant piracy is a strong indication that the marketplace is NOT 
working; that the special interests are trying to exact unwarranted 
premiums for content, and bundling stuff that consumers do not want 
with the stuff they do want.

There is ample evidence that consumers will pay a fair price for 
content. It is after all a huge business where consumers spend 
hundred of billions annually in the U.S. alone. There are examples 
all over the place of successful new products with relatively 
painless content management restrictions. DVDs have been a huge 
success, in large measure because of aggressive pricing by many 
distributors. Apple's iTunes demonstrates that it is quite feasible 
to SELL music online at reasonable prices, without the bundling that 
makes CDs ridiculously expensive.

>Your published and posted opinions on broadcast
>issues has significantly changed to the negative over the last couple of
>years and now seems to echo that of the CEA, even in your increased use of
>hyperbole.

Obviously, you only seem to be familiar with my recent work. I have 
only been writing for BE for the past three years. Prior to that I 
wrote for Videography and Digital TV (aka Television Broadcast). IF 
you would like, I can send you at least two dozen articles that are 
critical of broadcasters and the U.S. DTV transition since 1990. Or I 
could send you some of the comments I filed with the FCC in the 
Advanced Television process. I HAVE been working on this problem 
since 1992.

There is no hyperbole in the the reality that the US DTV transition 
is NOT working, at least with respect to OTA broadcasting. ON the 
other hand there is MUCH hyperbole about the notion that DTV 
broadcasting is about to turn a corner in the U.S., thanks in part to 
the arrival of receivers that work.

The problems with the U.S. DTV transition ARE NOT technical. They are 
political and economic, based in the reality that broadcasters have 
been used to assemble and maintain the media oligopoly that is now 
being exposed as the political propaganda machine that it is. Some 
consumers are even beginning to understand that the perceived 
animosity between cable, DBS and broadcasters is just a smoke screen 
to prop up a failing business model that forces most Americans to pay 
an unwarranted premium for bundles of programming that they do not 
watch and should not have to pay for.

In short, there is no marketplace for mass media content, it is a 
tightly controlled oligopoly.  And the Consitituional notion of a 
public commons for intellectual property has been turned on its head, 
thanks to the political and economic power wielded by the media 
moguls, who seek to have total control over the distribution of high 
value content.


Regards
Craig
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: