[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: The VCR Fades to Black
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:13:06 -0400
Aug 28, 2016, at 12:27 AM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The courts decided that people had the right to equipment that COULD be used
to infringe on copyright, because it could also be used legally. Recording TV
material for one's own use is legal. And obviously, renting or buying
pre-recorded movies is legal.
Correct. But that is not what Universal was concerned about; they were
concerned about illegal copying.
I agree with you that the courts struck the right balance, and that Hollywood
soon figured out how to make money with this new technology.
Now is it clear? Like I said, sometimes it takes that legal stamp of approval
to remove obstacles erected from the special interests. Internet neutrality
being one such.
It is clear that there is no relationship to the Title II decision. Net
neutrality was already the defacto way in which the Internet operated. Title II
just entrenched the incumbents and is likely to lead to rate regulation.
I wrote:
Really? What have the "special interests" done to block Internet access and
maintain total control over what TV people can watch?
We saw cable companies trying to keep Netflix out of their cable plants, and
we saw strenuous objections to a neutrality mandate. Craig, only you could
misunderstand (or not care about) the obvious intentions here.
NO cable company tried to keep Netflix out of their cable plants; not that it
matters as it is a different service that does not compete in a meaningful way
with cable service.
If you are saying that some cable systems had disputes with Netflix related to
the interconnection agreements between the cable systems and several of the
Content Delivery Networks that Netflix used to deliver streams to subscribers,
we could have a discussion. But these were not Net Neutrality disputes. They
were contract disputes based in the fact that Netflix caused existing peering
agreements to become highly asymmetrical, and the cable systems were not
willing to finance a competitor. Netflix had to restructure its business
relationships with the cable systems and pay for the traffic they were
generating.
And the really funny part is, they were playing their funny business with
Netflix at exactly the same time that the FCC was debating classifying
broadband under Title II. Talk about bad timing, eh?
Talk about irrelevant.
All they did was add urgency to the whole debate, get consumers all riled up,
which actually forced Tom Wheeler to reverse his previous stance! (Now, I
know we have been around this circle multiple times, so let's not go back to
square one.)
You like to portray the cable systems as the bad guys here. It was Netflix that
was getting the "free ride." But this is the way any dispute that elevates to
the level of government regulation is played. Everyone tries to portray the
other side as the problem.
Don't forget, the mail the FCC got on this subject was more than at any other
time, Craig. Oh well, huh? Vox populi est vox dei.
Yup. A great example of how the Internet has fundamentally changed the playing
field. In this case a small special interest organization was able to
successfully spam the FCC with hundreds of thousands of form letters.
Don't argue - I've already provided links that verify this.
And you misunderstand. It is the CONSUMERS that benefitted. That's what you
continue to miss. OBVIOUSLY, Craig, the content congloms would much rather
have had none of this. The congloms would have preferred to keep all the
Craigs of the world safely locked up inside garden walls, paying every month
for things they never use. What could be better for them?
The content congloms are succeeding in keeping all of the consumers of their
content locked up safely in walled gardens. And they are still getting people
to pay for all kinds of content they never watch, even with Sling.
Yes the times are changing thanks to a bit of competition and consumer
resistance to monopoly pricing. But the congloms are stronger and more
profitable than ever.
Ultimately, those who develop the content cannot lose out, unless their
content has limited public appeal. We already went over this many times.
Correct.
Likewise, as the technology for content distribution has evolved we have seen
many changes in the way content is consumed and paid for. The Internet is just
the latest chapter in this Made for TV anthology.
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:
