Case Illustrates Entertainment Industry's Copyright Power 7
The NYTimes is running a good recap of the iCraveTV situation. The U.S. broadcast industry shut down the operation because it redistributed programming over the internet... to U.S. citizens (assuming you could figure out a Canadian area code to enter into their website). Discusses the Digital Millennium Copyright Act extensively.
Re:You'd think they'd be happy (Score:1)
It seems to me it's because there's no way for the TV stations to make money off the rebroadcasts: iCrave isn't paying them and they can't charge the advertisers for more ad time, since ad time is sold at rates based on a show's expected viewership (Neilson ratings).
(I haven't read the article - for some reason, lynx chokes on the URL...)
--
What's really interesting/scary here (Score:1)
Why discriminate on location? (Score:1)
My question to all of this, is why discriminate on the grounds of where the viewer of the information is located? It is one thing for juristictions to have differing decency laws etc, but why should the provider be concerned about where the material is being seen/received? The wired world is global, so why cannot the information/entertainment providers allow their output to be disseminated globally?
Frequently entertainment series are released in one country (often the USA) before being seen in the rest of the world. It can both be frustrating and detract from the enjoyment when the episode is eventually seen to see discussion or information on usenet or the web about the latest episode of a series when your country is months (or even years) behind.
Re:You'd think they'd be happy (Score:1)
When are these corporate thugs going to get a good infusion of Cloo(tm) about such matters?
When porcine quadrupeds aviate.
Seriously, look at the history of "media meets the net". If the RIAA and the big music publishers had been on the ball, they would have been the ones with the mp3.com idea. They'd be making massive profits off people's desire to listen to music. They'd be in a position to charge royalties for every song downloaded or played, and most people would be glad to pay them. They'd be raking in big bucks. Look at what they're doing instead.
Look at on-demand video. How many people would be willing to pay for a movie to play on their home computer hooked up to their 21" monitor or big-screen TV? Do you see the MPAA rushing to bring this concept to market? Don't make me laugh. They'll sue the first person who tries.
And look at iCraveTV. If the networks were on the ball, they'd have thought of this first. They'd have sold the ad space for bigger bucks, justifying it on the basis that more people are watching. They'd have tied the ads into "instant-buy" buttons in the browser, enabling them to charge still bigger bucks for commercial time.
None of this even requires much imagination. But do these media behemoths pursue these promising profit-making opportunities? They're too busy lobbying for the DMCA to gain a stranglehold on tangible media. They're too busy running PR campaigns to get MP3 rejected as a "pirate music format". They're spending too much time on corporate strategy sessions aimed at keeping down the people who actually do have innovative ideas on distributing mass media.
Pathetic. Just pathetic. As someone said in one or another of the DeCSS topics, the history of media conglomerates and new technology is a history of the public having to beat media companies up until they're forced to take our money.
What is needed (Score:1)
You'd think they'd be happy (Score:2)
When are these corporate thugs going to get a good infusion of Cloo(tm) about such matters? Some practices that the industry deems "piracy" could stand to benefit them more than hurt them - unless you listen to thier short-sighted marketing nutcases. Ugh. tnar
:: remove the whitespace to e-mail me ::
--