Parrots, Part II
Continued from 'Octogenarians, Parrots and the Broadcast Flag'….
House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), the primary author of the under-development analog TV cutoff legislation, is also reportedly a Broadcast Flag detractor. Rep. Boucher, Rep. Barton and their like-minded peers deserve our support, both as consumers and as developers of various technologies whose potentials will only be fully realized in an environment in which consumers' fair use rights are preserved. To see what we're up against, check out this quote from Dan Glickman, the CEO of the MPAA; "So why should I care about a so-called broadcast flag regulation? The answer is simple. I want to make certain that the American people will continue to have the opportunity to see our movies and television shows on free television in the digital age".
Glickman's thinly veiled threat is exposed in the subsequent few lines of his CNET statement: "Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television. Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet. The sole purpose and effect of the broadcast flag is to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air digital television consumers". I'd call his stance naive, if I didn't already know that he was saying one thing and meaning another. Glickman knows full well that even if the Broadcast Flag is implemented, plenty of DTV reception gear bought prior to the cut-off date will exist, any of which can be used to capture and redistribute high-definition OTA content. He also knows that all it takes is one person gaining possession of a leaked Hollywood movie to enable its broad spread all over the world via the Internet and P2P networks, before it ever makes its way out of theaters and to DVD, television, etc.
The Broadcast Flag isn't fundamentally about protecting content, in my opinion; protection is a futile exercise, as the RIAA has already realized. It's about legally restricting consumers' access to content, and therefore extracting additional revenue from consumers. As the proposed January 1, 2009 analog TV cutoff nears, calls to implement the Broadcast Flag and other draconian measures will undoubtedly increase, even though recent surveys suggest that no more than 12% of the US population will be affected (aside; can anyone explain to me why television viewing is a citizen's right, and we should therefore subsidize the acquisition of digital TV tuners for members of the US population whose analog TVs will otherwise go dark at the end of 2008? Granted, I barely watch any television, so I'm predisposed to one side of the argument, but….). Resist those calls. For as Rep. Boucher says:
"What they are able to do … is prevent you from using it altogether. All that a creator of digital content has to do is guard it with a very simple technical measure and … then you may not circumvent that for any purpose. And so the creator of content can take everything to a pay-per-use (format) and that means nothing is free on the library shelf anymore. This is why librarians so strongly support my bill, they see that coming. History teaches us that when industry has a particular power, if they can make money using that power, that's what they'll do. And in this instance, the content industry has the power to prevent any fair use of their material and I have no doubt that's exactly where they'll go."
