MPAA clarifies stance against Net neutrality
MPAA chief Dan Glickman made it official today: Hollywood will fight Net neutrality regulations being considered by Congress and the FCC. Glickman's comments, which were in his annual "state of the industry" speech at ShoWest, weren't exactly surprising, given that the MPAA had urged the FCC last year not to adopt neutrality rules that would hurt anti-piracy efforts. Today, though, the nuance was gone. Said Glickman:
Government regulation of the Internet would impede our ability to respond to consumers in innovative ways, and it would impair the ability of broadband providers to address the serious and rampant piracy problems occurring over their networks today.
It's a bit strange to see content companies lining up with cable operators and telcos on this issue. Thanks to the paucity of competition today in broadband, DSL and cable-modem services are content bottlenecks online. One of the motives for pro-neutrality forces is the fear that those service providers will favor their own or their partners' offerings over competitors' fare. That fear lies at the heart of the complaint by Vuze -- whose Bit Torrent-powered online video service competes with the cable industry's VOD -- against Comcast's surreptitious interference with Bit Torrent traffic.
Yet Hollywood's vision is focused on the near-term risk of piracy, rather than the long-term risk of its distribution pipelines deciding to collect extra tolls. Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy. That's what some studio lobbyists have been telling lawmakers, too, in their efforts to derail neutrality legislation. And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.
But the bill that's awaiting action in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), doesn't fit that description. It would make it U.S. policy to preserve the public's access to "lawful" content, applications and services online, carving out wide latitude for ISPs to interfere with infringing works. For example, ISPs couldn't block all Bit Torrent traffic simply because it might be used for piracy, but they could use video fingerprints to try to stop Bit Torrent from being used to deliver bootlegged movies.
Sure, it would be easier just to do what Comcast has done -- clamp down on Bit Torrent when traffic gets too heavy, regardless of what it was being used for. The studios make so little money online relative to the amount of piracy they endure, it's easy for them to accept approaches that throw out a little bit of good with a lot of bad. But what happens when the revenue from downloads and commercials online becomes significant, as it surely will?
On the bright side, while sales of the music industry's main product continue to plummet, Glickman noted that Hollywood enjoyed its second banner year in a row at the box office. And so far, at least, the Internet and 60-inch plasma screens haven't dented the public's demand for a seat in front of a really big screen:
We found, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the more folks “pimp their living room,” as they might say on MTV, the more they go to the movies. High-tech consumers go to the movies 50% more often than their lower-tech counterparts—an extra four trips each year. And, overwhelmingly consumers say the ultimate movie experience is going to the movies.
Too bad movie production and marketing costs are so high, few films break even on box office alone. That's why Hollywood is so dependent on home video revenue, and why it is more afraid of today's online bootleggers than tomorrow's toll-collectors.
Subscribe to this Blog - What is RSS?
That speech was unbearable. I tried to read the PDF but I could not take Glickman for more than a page.
As long as net neutrality isn't mandated by law, there are a lot more sneaky tricks the MPAA can use to both prevent and profit from network distribution. Not forgetting these are the same folks who employ malicious hackers against the public and who openly lobby to make their hacking activities legal.
It's this sort of outfit, not angsty teenagers, that's going to "weaponize" the internet.
Posted by: 300baud | March 12, 2008 at 05:49 AM
erg
Posted by: i | March 13, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Dear MPAA, RIAA, and throwback managers…
You are a “buggy whip” manufacture in the automobile age. Evolve your business model, or your organizations will die a sad death. And if in fact it does, your company stock holder should hold Senior Managers and boards criminally negligence for not evolving the business model and leveraging this new technology.
And you, Mr. Dan Glickman, you should have the rights to use any open source and Linux technology or services based on that technology revoked.
Posted by: J Simon | March 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Dan Glickman = Darl McBride of SCO. Both missed the point. One has already suffered the consequences.
The MPAA would love to charge you every time you watch a movie that you bought on DVD. They just have not figured it out yet. Their "dinosaur" mentality will make them extinct.
If the MPAA does not want Net neutrality, then let's deny them access to it. It's not like the MPAA funded the net in any way.
Posted by: M B | March 13, 2008 at 01:26 PM
And thus once again the so-called North American democracies sell out to big business. Both Canada and the United States need a complete overhaul of the rules for political contributions, to ensure that the people, and not Business run the country.
Posted by: Conrad Mazian | March 13, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Mr Glickman says he used to grow corn, and now he sells it (as popcorn). Alas, more like he used to represent manure, and now he talks it.
I challenge Mr Glickman to provide evidence for these claims, under penalty of purjury. Lets see how strongly he stands behind them, when he actually HAS to stand behind them.
As it is, there is no evidence to his claims, nor has there ever been. If there were, they'd release the data used to obtain their 'findings' and calculate their 'losses'. Thats why it took two years to find out their published results from their 2005 study were flawed, yet they will still claimt he figures as true for any lawmaker with empty enough pockets.
If their claims have any merit, they should have the proof in their data. The fact they are so reluctant to show the proof of their claims shows how badly it would stand up to even the lightest scrutiny. Again, publicly, I call on the MPAA to "put up or shut up" - prove your claims, or stop making them.
Andrew Norton
Administrator
Pirate Party of the US
Posted by: Andrew Norton | March 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
It is a unique form of irony. Like the burgular that you strike with a frying pan, who in turn sues you for a years income - internet pirates are attempting to use the same system to gain legal backing for their theft. It is as if they are going back to the definition of theft, removing what they are doing from it and redefining the term itself. It is epic failure on the part of the criminals, and the system.
Posted by: Tyrone | March 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM
I think you got it wrong with: “ISPs couldn't block all Bit Torrent traffic simply because it might be used for piracy, but they could use video fingerprints to try to stop Bit Torrent from being used to deliver bootlegged movies.”
I doubt this is true. The way Bit Torrent works, if you install video fingerprinting appliances at the ISP (network router) level, it would be quite difficult for a fingerprinting engine to detect copyrighted material, because it has been split up into pieces and – almost by definition – cannot be detected by individual routers. Only the user’s device knows where to get the packets and how to combine them.
Video fingerprinting could be useful at the ISP level to catch users hosting pirated files, or emailing them (not likely with movies), or whatever. As long as the content is contiguous and not sliced up into pieces.
Posted by: Bill Rosenblatt | March 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Missing from the article is the point that the MPAA seeks to "read" your "mail". Not only does the MPAA seek to read your mail, but it wants to force a third party (the ISP) to protect their interests.
To put this another way, if you believe that your neighbor has stolen something from you, do you have a right to walk up to someone on the street and demand that they break into your neighbor's house to recover your property. I don't think so.
The ISP have no obligation to protect the interests of the MPAA. Furthermore, if the MPAA believes some of their content is being "stolen" go to court and get a search warrant. The MPAA should not be allowed to violate due process.
Posted by: Steve R. | March 14, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Bill -- mea culpa, and thanks for the comment. Substitute "content-identification technology" for "fingerprints" and you'll have something more plausible.
Posted by: Jon Healey | March 14, 2008 at 10:39 AM
As the government regulates more and more of the internet, we all move closer to communism. If it becomes acceptable to screen video torrents and filter ones that are breaking copyright laws, then soon other industries will fight for help from the government to make sure their failed product must be purchased at full price. Software will be regulated, photos must be purchased before being displayed on sites, and licenses will be sold to play any form of music on your PC. The internet was created as a way of sharing information, and that is what it does best. Just like America's dying auto industry begs the government for money to help their failed products compete, the music and movie industry wants the government to pass laws and regulations so they can continue to make money off of their product, instead of relying on ways which cannot be pirated to make money, such as seeing a band live or watching a movie at a cinema. As Captain Picard said, "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Posted by: Jordan_W | September 21, 2009 at 07:16 PM