MPAA taps FCC to change rules

[TBacker]

Well, here we go again.

The movie industry is trying to sneak through re-enabling the broadcast flags under the disguise of improved new-release availability.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...l?tag=nefd.top

Hmmm... Do ya think things like the HD PVR and Sage aren't on their radar?

They just don't get it.

[waynedunham]

Oh they most definitely DO get it. Sadly "it" is their warped sense of what the consumer needs.

They just can't fathom someone having a high quality image of their movie on their hard drive to watch at THEIR convenience rather that what some suit in Hollywood thinks an ideal airing time is.

They just don't get that most people out there can't be parked in front of their tv at 'x' hour for 'y' period of time to watch their show. That doesn't even take into consideration the moronic way that most networks schedule their shows.
I record a LOT of tv to watch and I end up with some nights that I need 6 tuners to get everything I want to watch, and other nights I can get by with 1.
Why do they insist on putting the paltry # of decent shows on at the same time? When will they learn from cable and air shows at multiple times to help alleviate some of the conflicts?

= ON: And most importantly why does the MPAA, RIAA, etc think that we should bow down and kiss their patootie every time we want to watch or listen to their media? I bought the CD/DVD and pay my $$ to "insert provider here" so I've already paid to get your media. I should be able to play it however many times I want, in whatever quality I want, on however many media devices I have! As long as it's for MY use and I'm not hauling my little red wagon full of homemade DVDs of "The 40 Year Old Virgin" down to the local flea market they not only shouldn't care, they should be trying to do everything in their power to make it easy for me to watch their media legally. Instead they keep putting up more and more copy protection and barriers which only serve to block the honest people. The crooks and criminals have countermeasures out before the ink is dry on the press announcement of their latest attempt at "protecting" their content. = OFF

[jsonnabend]

I agree that the MPAA, like the RIAA, is tilting at windmills. Rather than force the consumer to take what they're offering, they should figure out a business model that accommodates actual demand. That's what free market economics are all about, right?

But I wouldn't jump from that point to saying, "we should be able to do whatever we want with our media as long as it's for personal use." That just isn't a winning argument under current copyright law.

Copying digital media to different forms is still copying, and fair use only extends so far. Would copying a cookbook cover to cover to keep one copy at home, one in the office, one in the country house and one in the family RV be acceptable fair use? It certainly denies the copyright holder revenue on additional sales. Same goes for digital media, I think.

Ultimately, someone on the supply side of this equation needs to wake up to the realities of the marketplace. Consumers want a reasonable "freedom to copy", and the success of iTunes suggests that consumers are willing to pay in a commercially sustainable way for that freedom.

- Jeff

[waynedunham]

Originally Posted by jsonnabend

I agree that the MPAA, like the RIAA, is tilting at windmills. Rather than force the consumer to take what they're offering, they should figure out a business model that accommodates actual demand. That's what free market economics are all about, right?

But I wouldn't jump from that point to saying, "we should be able to do whatever we want with our media as long as it's for personal use." That just isn't a winning argument under current copyright law.

Copying digital media to different forms is still copying, and fair use only extends so far. Would copying a cookbook cover to cover to keep one copy at home, one in the office, one in the country house and one in the family RV be acceptable fair use? It certainly denies the copyright holder revenue on additional sales. Same goes for digital media, I think.

Ultimately, someone on the supply side of this equation needs to wake up to the realities of the marketplace. Consumers want a reasonable "freedom to copy", and the success of iTunes suggests that consumers are willing to pay in a commercially sustainable way for that freedom.

- Jeff

As long as I only used one copy of the cookbook at a time then I would say that is fair use. I bought 1 cookbook and I'm only using 1 cookbook at a time.
Now if I wanted to use the cookbook in the RV in Alaska while at the same time another member of the family was using it at the country house then I agree that would't fit the fair use model.

[kevine]

Originally Posted by jsonnabend

Would copying a cookbook cover to cover to keep one copy at home, one in the office, one in the country house and one in the family RV be acceptable fair use?

As long as it is the same 1 person cooking, yes. However, if you were to give 1 to Aunt Sally, Mom and Dad and the neighbor, then no.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by waynedunham

They just can't fathom someone having a high quality image of their movie on their hard drive to watch at THEIR convenience rather that what some suit in Hollywood thinks an ideal airing time is.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the "time they want you to watch". It has to do with the fact that people watching recorded shows skip commercials, and people watching live shows are forced to watch commercials. Commercials are how the networks make money. When in doubt, always remember rule #1: it's about MONEY.

Originally Posted by waynedunham

They just don't get that most people out there can't be parked in front of their tv at 'x' hour for 'y' period of time to watch their show.

Corporation "X" paid the network several million dollars, on the promise that however-many-million people would in fact be parked in front of their TV at that hour, watching their commercial. If corporation "X" can start to prove that there in fact aren't that many people watching, because a large percentage of them are recording the show and skipping the commercials, then corporation "X" is going to stop paying those millions of dollars to that network because they aren't getting any benefit from airing the commercial there. And I truly believe that thought scares the sh*t out of Hollywood and the American television media. American television media is starting to see that their long-running gravy train might not last indefinitely, and I expect you will start to see them take steps to do anything they can to protect it. Example: a few years ago, I started hearing rumblings that Tivo would institute a feature where commercials would pop up on your screen during any fast-forwarding.

Originally Posted by waynedunham

That doesn't even take into consideration the moronic way that most networks schedule their shows. I record a LOT of tv to watch and I end up with some nights that I need 6 tuners to get everything I want to watch, and other nights I can get by with 1. Why do they insist on putting the paltry # of decent shows on at the same time?

Because it's a competition. Whoever gets the most viewers can ask the highest price for commercials. See Rule #1, above.

Originally Posted by waynedunham

When will they learn from cable and air shows at multiple times to help alleviate some of the conflicts?

I'm no expert but I imagine that cable networks get most of their money from cable subscription fees rather than commercials, thus avoiding the need for "competition".

[waynedunham]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I don't believe it has anything to do with the "time they want you to watch". It has to do with the fact that people watching recorded shows skip commercials, and people watching live shows are forced to watch commercials. Commercials are how the networks make money. When in doubt, always remember rule #1: it's about MONEY.

Well I've been bypassing their "forced to watch" theory for just about my entire tv watching life. Commercials give you time to hit the head, hit the fridge, channel surf, etc. There is no excuse to be sitting watching commercials IMHO.
And that was way before I started recording everything which was/is necessitated by my work schedule. The biggest bonus of being forced to record everything and watch it at some other time I found was NOT having to find things to do while the commercials aired.

Even though I generally abhor commercials there are ones I like. The current ones for AT&T Mobile. I every time I hear/see the "Ronnies a Dillweed" one. I do see some commercials when I'm at someone else's house, at work, etc. When I am at those places they have to keep the remote out of my hands because I keep looking for the "Skip" button when the commercials come on.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Corporation "X" paid the network several million dollars, on the promise that however-many-million people would in fact be parked in front of their TV at that hour, watching their commercial. If corporation "X" can start to prove that there in fact aren't that many people watching, because a large percentage of them are recording the show and skipping the commercials, then corporation "X" is going to stop paying those millions of dollars to that network because they aren't getting any benefit from airing the commercial there. And I truly believe that thought scares the sh*t out of Hollywood and the American television media. American television media is starting to see that their long-running gravy train might not last indefinitely, and I expect you will start to see them take steps to do anything they can to protect it. Example: a few years ago, I started hearing rumblings that Tivo would institute a feature where commercials would pop up on your screen during any fast-forwarding.

They just have to find a new method to finance their shows. The commercial break that's been around as long as TV just doesn't cut it any more. What that method is I don't know. However even if they do find a way to kill all commercial skipping I STILL won't watch them. I'll just go back to hitting the bathroom, fridge, channel surfing, etc.
I also believe they overestimate just how much influence us HTPC people have. I work at a job with over 100 people and can count on 1 finger the # of people with an HTPC (me). These are well educated people making good money. There are a handfull who have either a TiVo type machine or DVR from their cable/sat company and of those most don't skip commercials.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Because it's a competition. Whoever gets the most viewers can ask the highest price for commercials. See Rule #1, above.

Then wouldn't it make more sense to put it on a night/time when there isn't any competition? Why take a smaller piece of a crowded pie when you could have the whole pie? That's what they are doing by putting shows on against other popular shows. At the very least put shows that appeal to an entirely different demographic on against that juggernaut show on 'x' network not something which attracts the same demo.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I'm no expert but I imagine that cable networks get most of their money from cable subscription fees rather than commercials, thus avoiding the need for "competition".

I'm sure that is true. That's how HBO, SHowtime, etc make their dough. Mind you I'm not advocating that the regular networks try to go for that model and my cable bill gets even more ridiculous.

I am exposed to some commercials at other peoples houses, at work, etc. And there are a few I like. One of my current favorites that makes me every time I see it is the Ronnie's a DillWeed one for AT&T Mobile.

As a general rule however the commercials are so stupid (stupid can be ok if it's meant to be funny), or boring that they couldn't sell me an ice cream cone in the desert.

[mickp]

It's an old one but still my favourite http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7oNO1w2eDLQ

Good beer too.

Mick.

[waynedunham]

Originally Posted by mickp

It's an old one but still my favourite http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7oNO1w2eDLQ

Good beer too.

Mick.

ummmm ok. Is that a canoe in your pocket or are you just happy to be here?

[Zippster]

They do like the governments, over complicate and control it to death until they make everyday citizens into criminals.