[opendtv] Re: Two articles about sticking it to the TV consumer
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:11:16 -0400
At 6:42 PM -0700 10/5/09, dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Craig:
I agree with all of your insights. You have a much better grasp of
all the inner workings than I do. And I very much agree with your
opinions.
My comparison was more about the power struggles than anything. But
you took the analogy much further with rather nice application.
My argument was more in lines with "fair use" of media (or parks)
that is broadcast and/or distributed to the masses. We've discussed
it before on this board and some of us have disagreed.
The media moguls are doing everything in their power to kill "Fair Use."
They live by a simple rule: When you watch it you should pay for it;
and if you watch it again you should pay again.
Needless to say they have a long way to go, and they will wear
themselves out trying to control "illegal" distribution. Of course,
it's not "illegal" if they WANT to create viral media and let it
spread uncontrolled. It's only illegal when they don't want you to
see it - e.g. the Letterman confession.
The irony here is that as a consumer, we can do more with OTA than
MVPD media, but much of the power over MVPD is because of the OTA.
Or perhaps my understanding it too simplistic. But I offer up,
what if OTA went away and only the MVPD was available to the
customer? What "fair use" would we have left of media, especially
if it went all digital? I propose that it could be seriously
hampered.
See above.
OTA will go away, if for no other reason than the desire of the media
conglomerates to plug all of the holes that they cannot control.
Without retrans consent OTA would already be gone. With it, the
broadcasters will price themselves out of the market, allowing the
conglomerates to bypass them with lower rights fees to the MVPDs.
This is a no brainer - the congloms reclaim all of the ad revenues
that go to local broadcasters today AND they get the rights fees too.
I offer an opinion: if it is broadcast over open air ways, you have
the right to consume it. That includes place shift it, time shift
it, even share it. It was out there for all to use and see and all
should be able to do so. If the broadcasters or media producers
don't want it to be that open, don't put it on the air waves.
This has already happened, especially for live sports. And more and
more first run high value content is showing up on cable networks
first. Broadcast is increasingly a vast wasteland with less and less
compelling content to attract viewers. But it is a good way to reach
the bottom feeders.
Dare I even say, we should have the right to distribute it. Now if
we had some morals left in our society, it would be obvious that the
line is drawn at selling it; that is out-of-bounds. But if we want
to have a large crowd at a local gathering place (bar, church, home)
to watch the Superbowl, it is out there on the airwaves and we
should have the right to receive it and display it. If the media
companies don't like that, don't put it out there.
Sorry, too late. If there is any value added by the TV content they
will go after you. Bars and restaurants are highly targeted, and I've
seen some stories about going after churches that turn their houses
of worship into "event" auditoriums. THe only problem now is that the
"people meters" are still too dumb. But n a few years, they may send
you a bill when you have a crowd over to watch a game.
Now, dare we apply that to internet traffic? If I said yes, would
you I get an earful?
They already have, in a huge way. You do not have the right to
redistribute content via the Internet. You do not even have the right
to use the Internet to place shift the viewing of content you own.
This is especially true for broadcast TV. A broadcaster cannot make
its "on air" content available as Internet streams - they may be able
to put a few stories up on their web sites, but watching the
Gainesville TV news when I am in Las Vegas is a No, No.
Here is where it gets tricky: since MVPD is a private utility, there
is much more control. With private control, there is much more
power and you better just give up your right to do anything but
stare at the screen. This is what I am seeing within our struggle
to install a localized and controlled IPTV system. Even if there
were fair use, and it has been argued that there is not with an
MVPD, all the MVPD need to do is cut you off if they don't like what
they see, levying leans and fines if they want to. Is this the kind
of power they should have?
They think so. Rights is a very touch subject for the MVPDs as they
are essentially acting as "tax collectors." The main reason that
cable bills keep going up is rights fees. Of course they sneak a few
extra pennies in profit in each time they increase rates to cover the
escalating rights fees.
The good news is that this is unsustainable. We will all soon realize
that we are paying more for the MVPD service than it would cost to
buy the content ala carte. The Internet is the "Horn and Hardart" of
content delivery. For those who are not old enough to remember, Horn
And Hardart was a chain of restaurants in New York City where each
food item was behind a glass door; you put a few coins in to unlock
the items you wanted.
This is why I say that we could be hurt if we lose OTA and current
"fair use" laws. I realize this is met with much criticism by many.
And if our society would follow better ethics and morals there
wouldn't even be a need to discuss it as people would use it by fair
means. But I would say that there will come a day when you'll be
lucky to consume the media even if you are paying for it. I would
argue that we are already there. I might say the same of our
National Parks.
The light at the end of the tunnel is growing brighter every day. You
can only abuse your customers for so long, until they say "so long."
Fair use is gong to blossom in a world where individual content
creators want to build an audience for their creations. Like a garage
band giving away a few tracks to build awareness, then charging a
small fee to buy direct, or splitting the take with an online
retailer as is happening now with the Apple App store.
And let's not forget that advertisers still want to reach us. As the
tools improve to deliver targeted ads, we will likely see a new form
of barter supported content replace the old form of broadcast using
shot-gun advertising techniques.
Regards
Craig
Dan
(PS: I bet I would get an earful if I offered the opinion that an
MVPD is not really a private utility but should be a community
resource, providing the same rights and responsibilities of a true
broadcast.)
This is already the case. They pay a franchise fee and have stronger
public service requirements (local access channels) than
broadcasters. If you think broadcasters are a community resource,
just ask for some free air time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
