Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
from the over-and-over-and-over-again dept
For years, we've seen that the entertainment industry honestly seems to think that it has the right to veto and kill off any new technology that doesn't fit into its own business model plans. Of course, they've had some support in this from copyright maximalists, like former head of the Copyright Office, Ralph Oman, who recently declared that all new technologies that impact content should be presumed illegal until Congress decides otherwise. Can you imagine what sort of innovation we'd have in the consumer electronics space if we had to wait for Congress' approval for each new device? Especially given the power to lobby against such approvals?I'm reminded of this thanks to News Corp. (via Fox) filing for a new injunction against Dish Networks for the latest version of its DVR, the Dish Hopper with Sling. Now, you may recall that Fox already tried to get an injunction against Dish's Hopper with Sling and lost pretty badly (even as it pretended that it had won). Fox is appealing that decision, but also filed a new request for an injunction against the updated device, claiming that the key new feature, Hopper Transfers, goes beyond anything else and (once again), must be stopped.
This is the same old story over and over again. The last century plus of copyright law has been driven by the entertainment industry flipping out time and time again over new innovations that they don't think should be allowed. The 1909 Copyright Act was driven, in large part, by the introduction of the evil player piano, leading many to insist that this would kill the demand for live music and put musicians out of work.
Around that time, there was also the invention of the gramophone, or, as John Philip Sousa called it, "that infernal machine." He famously claimed, "these talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country," and that "we will not have a vocal cord left," because evolution will deem them not necessary due to "talking machines."
Then along came radio, and it too, was destined to wipe out the industry, with ASCAP demanding that any song that was to be played on the radio first needed to (a) get permission from the rights holder and (b) have the DJ state clearly before each song that it was being played "by special permission" from the rightsholder. When people started mocking that phrase (and someone even wrote a song about it), ASCAP stated that the permission line had to be spoken by DJs with "no facetious trifling."
Moving on, along came cable TV to add some competition to the TV market. And what happened? Lawsuits of course. "It would be difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of the Copyright Act," we were told.
And you may have heard what happened when the original VCR was invented. Why the MPAA's Jack Valenti had a thing or two to say about that:
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.Cassette recorder? "Home taping is killing music."
DVR? Must be illegal. According to the head of Turner Broadcasting: "People who watch TV without commercials are stealing from the entertainment producers."
How about the first real MP3 player, the Diamond Rio? Lawsuit filed in which it was stated that allowing the device, "will injure not only the record companies and artists whose work will be pirated, but also the music publishers, musicians, background singers, songwriters and others whose existence is dependent on revenue earned by record sales."
YouTube? Viacom's lawsuit is still ongoing, but Viacom insisted that, if allowed, YouTube would "severely impair, if not completely destroy, the value of many copyrighted creations."
And lets not even get into all of the technologies that the entertainment industry has been shutting down over the past few years. Zediva? Dead. ivi? Gone. Aereo? Still here, but fighting. Veoh? Dead (even though it won its lawsuit). MP3Tunes? Bankrupt due to lawsuit (even though it won too). There are many more as well.
See a pattern yet? This pattern repeats over and over and over and over again. The entertainment industry, aided by the Copyright Office, seems to think that there's some sort of role it has to play in giving the yay or nay vote to any new technological innovation that concerns content consumption. And, of course, the vote is always "nay." In the long run, that always turns out to be the wrong vote. So why do we constantly allow the entertainment industry to get away with this nonsense? This filing from Fox is merely the latest in a very long line of these kinds of actions, and it should be immensely troubling to those who recognize that the best way for the entertainment industry itself to thrive in the modern world is to embrace these new services, which increase value to consumers and make them more interested in watching/listening to the content being produced.
You would think that, after a century of these examples, those in the entertainment industry might finally realize that looking for the opportunities in these innovations is a more productive strategy than trying to kill every new technology. Apparently, however, the industry is still run by people who have no sense of history, other than the history of always ratcheting up copyright enforcement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dish hopper with sling, hopper transfers, injunction, innovation, veto
Companies: dish, fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You'd think?
The Entertainment industry isn't paid to think, they're paid to keep culture locked up for all time, anything that threatens that is an anathema to them.
Why...
They might have to compete honestly if copyright didn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how do we the people deal with this? We share, we crowdsource, we open source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Not that the entertainment industry is filled with egotistical, over-entitled, spoilt brats, or anything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep repeating this, but it was wrong the first time you claimed it and it's wrong now. That's not what he said. Care to discuss the matter on the merits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure seems to me that Mike's correct on what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a way they're actually being helpful :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh that's what they call greasing the wheels these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120927/00320920527/former-copyright-boss -new-technology-should-be-presumed-illegal-until-congress-says-otherwise.shtml
Pulling from the article the relevant snippet:
Commercial exploiters of new technologies should be required to convince Congress to sanction a new delivery system and/or exempt it from copyright liability. That is what Congress intended.
It's not surprising, AJ, that you choose to ignore this and yet again prove exactly where your loyalties lie. With copyright maximalists.
You're just a belligerent troll. None of us here expect anything less or more from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Until you say exactly what your problem is, we can't start a conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your squirming won't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, "WHY WON'T YOU BE OPEN AND HONEST?!?!"
Oh wait, you do that every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and
"Whenever possible, when the law is ambiguous or silent on the issue at bar, the courts should let those who want to market new technologies carry the burden of persuasion that a new exception to the broad rights enacted by Congress should be established."
How do you interpret that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must be one of those people who will be enforcing six strikes. Remember, in the real world, saying someone's wrong doesn't make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After lawsuits failed, Congress changed copyright law to make unauthorized performance illegal. And now syncing music to video without authorization is illegal, even if you have the individual rights to both. Great job Congress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The 1909 Copyright Act was driven, in large part, by the introduction of the evil player piano, leading many to insist that this would kill the demand for live music and put musicians out of work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First example provided, third paragraph. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are they doing that inside the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
By the way, they're certainly right that all those gadgets you list increase piracy, regardless whether they got more income by re-cycling old products (those where can actually ignore "sunk (or fixed) costs" because long since recovered). But the end of that gravy train is in sight.
Anyway, since you've NO fix to even propose, it's just MORE useless complaining.
Can you see YOUR OWN PATTERN yet, Mike? It's endless re-cycling of "See? Buggy whips are out now that these new-fangled horseless carriages are in." -- You stick to what you know works, exactly as does Big Media!
(And for the obvious reaction: I basically work with what Mike puts out, so when he only repeats endlessly, so do I.)
Real mystery here is how Mike "makes a living by writing", as he claims. It IS a different era when you can get income without any visible ads it could be from. Tell us more on how that works, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
Why would you waste time and energy caring about piracy if you're making more money? That time and energy invested in trying to prevent piracy will never be recouped; it's a bad investment, money down the drain.
"But the end of that gravy train is in sight."
Another bold claim from Blue with no explanation as to what you’re actually claiming...
"Anyway, since you've NO fix to even propose, it's just MORE useless complaining."
The problem is the entertainment industry complaining about technological advancement. The "fix" is to stop complaining and use these advancements to their benefit. This has been stated countless times.
"Real mystery here is how Mike "makes a living by writing", as he claims."
It's only a mystery to the intellectually impaired. Most of us can figure it out pretty easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
So unless you're prepared to suddenly show us smoking gun evidence of all this supposed corruption, shut the fuck up about his income stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your perspective is that without a stake in the game, Mike.
Fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news: it's been a slow day today.
An interesting article, as usual, but there is nothing new here. As much as I usually disagree with OOTB, he may have a point this once. A number of techdirt articles start out with a bit of (interesting) news, before repeating the same old arguments (and preaching to the choir and deaf congregation). This time, there is enough news for only 2 sentences. Why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news: it's been a slow day today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news: it's been a slow day today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news: it's been a slow day today.
If you're standing around asking, why isn't anyone leaving because I think this content is worthless, then... shouldn't you be questioning your fundamental assumption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news: it's been a slow day today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suggest that we use pitchforks and torches and keep it old school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History Repeating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: History Repeating
-John Gill, Patterns of Force
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given that history, why on earth does anyone ever listen to them. They have demonstrated time and again that the very best tactic for them to follow, if increased exposure and revenue are the aim,is that which they rail against.
At least it goes to show that to really earn big money as middlemen it is a distinct advantage to be both ignorant and incompetent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 26th, 2013 @ 2:20pm
It's somewhat tempting to not save them from themselves but then we'd have their rotten stinking corpse to deal with, that and having to lie to those who loved them to try to minimise their distress.
'No, I'm sure it was just a horrible accident, that they never saw coming and was through no fault of their own despite hiring the motel room, buying the ballgag, the silk stockings and taping the bag over their own head. No, I can't imagine why the life insurance company aren't paying out.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cinavia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These events would be hilarious on an afternoon soap opera and would make J.R. proud. (cultural reference: Dallas “who shot J.R.”) Its another effort of industry to take advantage of whatever tools are available to get ahead of the competition.
Silverscarcat is one up on me pointing our the concept of 'locking up' culture. (a recurrent theme of this site) Of which would be nice to explore a bit by suggesting it makes a profitable, if ruthless, business model. By eternal suppression of cultural items such as books, movies, songs, software (patents), etc. the media industry can force themselves to be the middlemen of culture charging whatever prices such a monopoly would allow. It is this kind of copyright abuse that robs your bookshelf and Family Archive of new and creative works. (In addition to all the works removed from public domain.)
Being a middleman of culture also provides opportunities to play an audience's awareness of culture like a conductor oversees an orchestra. Want to blame anyone about modern culture? (point, point.) Its tempting to place all the blame here on present media firms but each is forced by shareholders and a 'culture of profitable business'. If it weren't for the damage to our cultural awareness it would be fine.
Beyond the obvious propaganda opportunities this business model offers. (I can't stomach that much corruption in one day so will stick with the obvious, unfair, business advantage.) one can see that it removes the opportunity's of the current audience to make derivative works within their lifetimes. Then it is a viable business option to crate a remake of a movie every 10-20 years or so. Thus reinterpreting the culture surrounding that story and reselling it at the same time. (how soon will another remake of The Blob pop up?)
How many Hobbit stories were quashes by the family of Tolkien? How many Batman stories were wiped away by, the figure of, Batman being trademarked? (Trademark is another abused law. Raise the cost of it dramatically or find another way to stop a firm from trademarking everything. Disney? hahaha) Fan Fiction is a wonderfully diverse field that explores characters in ways the original author could or would not. How many plays, videos, band performances, live events of any kind using whatever cultural references have been eliminated form the repertoire of live actors and musicians. Translation or Scanslation groups? What whole sectors of profitable activities have been wiped out by political clout. How much GDP has been lost to... the middlemen of culture?
Note: Satire has been used for centuries in comedy and see no reason why some modern 20th century court found it was not fair use. (there has got to be 10k examples of its historical use in newspaper political comics and literature) Another way in which law is used to edit culture.
Many of the tools used by media firms cement their cultural middleman status are based on hardware (and now software?) and the formats they use. Patent law is also rife with abuse. All of this affects how much and how fast the public domain grows. Sadly the concept and value of the public domain is does not enter into political debate.
At the moment the present batch of politicians only view the public domain as meat for the omnivorous corporate donor (special interest groups) animals that devour anything if only because they need to satisfy the stockholders (rights-holders?) insatiable appetites. Please notice I never mentioned actors and artists etc.
Mentioned was “after a century of these examples” which brings to my point of the propaganda like editing possibilities that being a middleman of culture gives. Surely in every movie they make is an underlying meem that their way of business is just and valid. The unmentioned and unanswered question is why is the concept of public domain vacant from the political and public vocabulary?
It seems a director/producer's self justification claim is solely based on an over 100 million gross.
Innovation can be a wonderful thing in that it makes our lives easier, better, longer and leaves time for more fun. It also has the benefit of bringing monopolies down to earth. I encourage any idea that leads to the expansion of our shared culture. Many times innovation has succeeded by eliminating the middleman and we can only hope... (silence)
My punch line is another reference to 'cigarette arguments' because even if the firms involved feel they have no choice in their actions... they know the consequences to public domain and the culture we need to be able to share. Grim Reaper Shinigami Inc. would be proud of them and might consider contracting them as media reps.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-write-rep ort-saying-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381
The 'tying up culture' business model is another example of how the elimination of the entire copyright amendment would simplify our lives and remove the cultural middlemen who profit by such behavior. I am in favor of some type of author protection for a term much less that the life of the audience but don't call it copyright! Call it something else, because it seems, the entire copyright law has been corrupted and its to late to be saved.
We can work on trademark law and dump software patents if we can.
My thread of logic is here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/14191722072/six-strikes-officially-begins-monday.shtml#c25 58 which basically says “culture (and cultural awareness) will grow when copyright is less that the lives of the audience”.
I always seem late to the party but thanks for leaving me some strongly media laden drinks, hardware based sushi and a light format salad. (and don't forget the satirical dessert) I have in mind, every time is start one of my essays, something short, possibly humorous and definitely sweet but am amazed at how it grows from that. (and turns out completely different)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]