Malaysia Looks To Prosecute Homeowners Where Accused Streaming Piracy Occurs

from the upstream dept

Back in the early days of filesharing clients and bittorrent being the focus of industry anti-piracy efforts, it was rare but not unheard of for end users to be targeted with lawsuits and criminal prosecution for copyright infringement. With the piracy ecosystem largely moving off of those kinds of filesharing platforms and more into a realm in which end users instead simply stream infringing material over the wire, rather than downloading it directly to their own machines, the focus on the consumer of pirated material has fallen by the wayside. Instead, the focus is now on the infringing sites that offer those streaming materials to the public. This makes a great deal of sense, actually, as the average user plausibly can claim ignorance as to the illicit nature of streamed material, combined with the simple fact that, unlike bittorrent technology, streaming material doesn't simultaneously offer it up to others as well.

Again, this makes sense.

Well, someone should reach out to the Malaysian government, because its new plans to fight piracy occurring with the aid of in-house Android boxes includes a strategy to prosecute any homeowner where such a device used for infringement exists.

There are many strategies available but the government in Malaysia is currently considering something unheard of anywhere on the planet. While it hasn’t shied away from ordering ISPs to block pirate sites, it now wants to hit consumers of content too, specifically those using Android-style set-top boxes.

The mission of the National Film Development Corporation Malaysia (FINAS) is sometimes compared to that of the MPAA in the US. Unlike the MPAA, however, FINAS is a government department within the Ministry of Communications and Multimedia. Its chairman, Datuk Hans Isaac, says that it’s time to hold the public accountable for piracy.

“I’m putting a paper together to propose that the owner of the house is responsible for the use of illegal Android TV boxes,” he said at the Fast Track 2019 Creative Digital Economy Forum in Cyberjaya.

This plan should raise the eyebrows for several reasons. The whole thing looks a bit like the strategy used by copyright trolls, where IP addresses are used to identify infringers, except that IP addresses make for shitty evidence as to who is actually infringing. After all, the account holder of an internet service isn't the only individual who might use that service. The same goes with homeownership, except more so (more on that in a moment). If IP addresses are bad at determining who actually infringed on a copyright, home-ownership records must represent a step further back from actual evidence.

And the government isn't even trying to pretend that its plans will make good on catching the party actually infringing copyright.

In the United States, Europe and elsewhere it’s not uncommon for copyright trolls to blame Internet subscribers (often the homeowner) for Internet piracy. However, it seems that FINAS wants to take things a whole lot further by placing the responsibility for piracy on those who may be innocent and/or completely absent.

“It doesn’t matter if the person is renting the house to another person who bought the device,” the FINAS chairman clarified.

This can be paraphrased as: "We're not actually all that concerned if we catch the infringing party. We mostly just want someone to blame for all of this, so we'll settle for whoever owns the abode, whether they live there or not." The potential that this new plan will ensnare innocent parties is nearly 100%. It's also going to be absolute hell for the real estate rental market. That sound you hear is a thousand Malaysian real estate lawyers scrambling to revise lease agreements for their customers.

Open for discussion is exactly how effective all of this will be anyway.

Norman believes that when tackling the problem, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) should consider restricting Internet access to those who utilize pirate services.

Again, it remains unclear how the government could determine who these people are. The main problem cited isn’t easily-trackable BitTorrent users but those who frequent streaming sites, portals, and other services.

Which is why the strategy has always been to go after and/or block the sites themselves, rather than the end user streaming the content. What silver bullet the Malaysian government has crafted to be able to track this sort of thing remains unknown at this point.

But what isn't unknown is just how antithetical to justice this plan is.

Filed Under: copyright, malaysia, piracy, set top boxes, trolling

FCC Wants Ebay, Amazon To Crack Down On Kodi-Based Pirate TV Boxes

from the control,-not-copyright dept

For years now, tinkerers everywhere have built custom-made PCs that use the open-source Kodi platform. Highly flexible and customizable, this hardware can often work notably better than the locked-down TV hardware (especially traditional cable boxes) that are the norm. But the hardware can also be used to streamline access to copyright content. And in more recent years, outfits like Dragonbox or SetTV have taken things further by selling users tailor-made hardware that provides easy access to live copyrighted content.

Not too surprisingly, video producers and broadcasters haven't much liked this. And in recent months, Amazon and Netflix have joined forces with Hollywood to try and sue many of these operations out of existence. Last week they got a little help from FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who fired off a letter to both Amazon and Ebay demanding they do more to combat the listing of these devices on their respective websites. O'Rielly was quick to acknowledge that the FCC's authority over copyright is negligible, so he focused instead on these companies' unauthorized use of the FCC logo:

"Disturbingly, some rogue set‐top box manufacturers and distributors are exploiting the FCC's trusted logo by fraudulently placing it on devices that have not been approved via the Commission's equipment authorization process. Specifically, nine set-top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance. Many of these sellers are attempting to distribute their non-compliant products through online marketplaces such as yours. Although outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is equally troubling that many of these devices are being used to illegally stream copyrighted content, exacerbating the theft of billions of dollars in American innovation and creativity.

And that's all well and good. Companies like DragonBox are dressing up piracy as a legitimate service while illegally using the FCC logo. Both Amazon and Ebay responded to O'Rielly noting they already have numerous systems in place to prohibit the sale of such devices, and were open to working with the FCC to police future sales.

That said, O'Rielly fails to mention that he's historically supported policies at the FCC that make this whole problem worse than it needs to be.

Again, Kodi itself is perfectly legal. And even in the case of more ethically-dubious services, users are flocking to them because they find traditional video services and hardware to be locked down, inflexible, and expensive. Much of that has to do with obnoxious DRM that more often than not makes the viewing experience annoying as hell. And a lot of it has to do with the cable industry's monopoly control over the cable box, which prevents the entire ecosystem from being as open and competitive as it should be.

And O'Rielly himself played a pretty major role in that.

Last year, O'Rielly helped the cable & broadcast industry crush a plan to bring much-needed openness and competition to the cable box. That plan, developed under the Wheeler FCC, would have let consumers access all cable TV content entirely via app, eliminating the traditional cable box and opening up competition on the streaming hardware front. But thanks to an absolutely massive disinformation effort by the cable industry, the plan was killed. Among other things, the cable sector tried to claim that added TV hardware competition would have stifled innovation, encouraged piracy, and even harmed minorities.

None of it was true, but it was repeated ad nauseum in countless editorials nationwide that failed to disclose the authors' ties to the cable sector. The industry even managed to get the Copyright Office to join the fun by claiming that this added competition would somehow violate copyright.

It was another perfect example of how the definition of copyright is routinely abused, and these issues often have to do more with control than copyright. And while it's great that O'Rielly decided to lend a hand here, it might be cool if he realized how his own anti-innovation policies at Trump's FCC have helped make this problem of his immeasurably worse. If traditional video markets were cheaper, more open, customizable and flexible, these kinds of alternatives wouldn't be nearly as popular in the first place because consumers would already be getting what they're looking for.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, fcc, kodi boxes, mike o'rielly, set top boxes
Companies: amazon, dragonbox, ebay, netflix

Cable Industry Quietly Shelves Its Bogus Plan To Make Cable Boxes Cheaper, More Competitive

from the misbehaving-without-a-baby-sitter dept

Last year, the cable industry quietly launched one of the most misleading and successful lobbying efforts in the industry's history. The target? A plan concocted by the former FCC that would have let customers watch cable programming without having to rent a cable box or use a CableCARD. Given the industry makes $21 billion annually in rental fees off of this entrenched hardware monopoly, the industry got right to work with an absolute wave of disinformation, claiming that the FCC's plan would confuse customers, increase piracy, and was (with a little help from Jesse Jackson) somehow even racist (seriously).

At one point, the industry even managed to grab the help of the US Copyright Office, which falsely claimed that more cable box competition would somehow violate copyright. Of course the plan had nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with control, exemplifying once again that for the US Copyright Office, public welfare is often a distant afterthought.

As part of this stage show, the cable industry also created a group specifically tasked with attacking the proposal. Dubbed the Future of TV Coalition, the group set forth to not only attack the FCC's plan, but to propose its own counter proposal it claimed made any cable box reform efforts at the FCC unnecessary. Dubbed the "ditch the box" proposal, the cable industry and the Future of TV Coalition breathlessly stated the industry (pdf) was already cooking up ways to help consumers avoid rental fees have greater choice, and that these efforts were already well underway:

"This new “Ditch the Box” approach calls for binding, enforceable obligations for major TV providers to allow customers to ditch their set-top boxes and access live and on demand programming via boxless apps compatible with a wide range of retail devices, including smart TVs, game consoles, streaming devices, laptops, tablets, phones, and more...Providers will have two years to fully implement the new requirements – and many are already racing to do so sooner."

That was then, this is now. Shortly after Trump's election win, the new Ajit Pai led FCC quickly moved to scuttle the plan. And not too surprisingly, the cable industry's counter plan to make lives better for consumers never actually materialized, and appears to have been mothballed:

"The Future of TV Coalition has gone silent — it last tweeted Nov. 28 — the cable industry’s trade group NCTA hasn’t had much to say about it either. NCTA spokesman Brian Dietz wrote in an e-mail that Ditch the Box was pitched as “an “alternative” to the Wheeler’s original proposal. Without the FCC’s acceptance of Ditch the Box, that plan got ditched."

So without somebody actively pressuring an uncompetitive sector to stop being uncompetitive, they continue to be uncompetitive. Who could have possibly predicted that? Of course the cable industry continues to pay empty lip service to the idea of choice and freedom, all the while continuing efforts to make actual consumer choice on this front as difficult and expensive as ever (see Comcast's decision to charge users a completely unnecessary fee just to use a Roku as a cable box, or cross-industry efforts to use unnecessary broadband usage caps and overage fees to drive up the cost of streaming via their competitors).

The cable industry falsely believes this is all an ingenious plan to keep its traditional cable TV cash cow alive indefinitely. But as the continued and accelerating rate of TV cord cutting illustrates, the cable sector isn't going to be nearly as impervious to market evolution as it likes to believe.

Filed Under: cable box, cable card, cable tv, competition, ditch the box, fcc, lies, set top boxes, unlock the box
Companies: ncta

Comcast's Decision To Charge Roku Users A Bogus Fee Highlights Its Uncanny Ability To Shoot Innovation In The Foot

from the sabotaging-innovation dept

So when we last checked in with Comcast, the company was whining about a now deceased FCC plan to bring some much-needed openness and competition to your dusty old cable box. The FCC had proposed requiring that cable providers let users pick the cable box of their choice, later modifying the plan (after endless industry pearl-clutching) to simply requiring that cable providers bring their existing content in app form to existing streaming boxes. Granted, Comcast was at the heart of a massive, bizarre disinformation effort claiming the plan would end civilization as we know it.

Of course, what it would have ended was not only $21 billion in cable box monopoly rental fees, but a cornerstone of the closed, locked down walled garden that helps prop up the cable industry's gatekeeper power. Comcast, for what it's worth, claimed that bringing its content to third-party devices would harm copyright, increase piracy, hinder cable industry "innovation," and was technically impossible anyway. Regardless, the FCC's plan is dead, and it's not coming back any time soon.

But Comcast still has to drive the impression that it's listening to consumers and driving innovation, so the cable giant recently announced it would be bringing its Xfinity cable TV service to Roku streaming hardware. The app, currently in beta, lets users access their existing Comcast TV content without the need for a cable box, highlighting, Comcast insists, the company's innovation in the TV space:

"Featuring an immersive guide with rich graphics, imagery, personalized recommendations and detailed information for tens of thousands of movies and TV shows, the app will allow Xfinity TV customers to watch live and on demand programming, including local broadcast and Public Educational and Governmental channels, as well as their cloud DVR recordings, delivered over Comcast’s secure private managed network, on Roku devices in the home."

On its surface this sounded great. But this being Comcast, the company couldn't allow itself to be innovative without saddling customers with entirely unnecessary fees. Reports quickly began to emerge that Comcast would be charging customers that use Roku in this fashion an additional $7.95 every month, for no coherent reason whatsoever:

"What makes this fee striking is that it's not designed to pay for any particular cost to Comcast's business. The $9.95 fee that 99 percent of cable customers pay for set-top boxes is listed on bills as an equipment "rental fee." Even the Cablecard fee includes a bit of hardware from the cable operator. But the Roku app is purely software. It doesn't require a piece of equipment supplied by the cable company, nor does it require a technician to come to your home to set it up."

But Gigi Sohn, who served as a senior adviser to former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, said she knows why.

"It's gravy to them," Sohn said. "You're already paying handsomely for the service. And now they're making you pay a second time."

It is, in effect, a $7.95 "because we can" fee, and a big reason the FCC wanted to standardize this process to keep cable executive "creativity" under control. Of course, this being Comcast, the company was also quick to make sure this service wouldn't count against the completely unnecessary broadband usage caps it continues to deploy across the least competitive portions of the company's footprint. Comcast's FAQ on the new Roku beta correctly notes that this technically isn't a net neutrality violation, because this traffic never actually touches the general internet:

The Xfinity TV service delivered through the Xfinity TV Beta app is not an Internet service and does not touch or use the Internet. Rather, it is a Title VI cable service delivered solely over Comcast's private, managed cable network, so it will not count toward your Xfinity Internet Data Usage Plan.

So yeah, while not technically a violation of net neutrality (not that those rules will be around long anyway), it still gives Comcast a competitive advantage. If you're trying to choose between a new streaming live TV service like Sony's Playstation Vue or Dish's Sling TV or Comcast's offering, the fact that those services will erode your Comcast usage cap could very likely drive you back into the arms of Comcast. Of course, that's quite by design, and is a perfect example of how every "innovation" Comcast pushes into the market tends to have a nasty underlayer of price gouging and anti-competitive shenanigans.

Filed Under: fees, innovation, set top boxes, tv
Companies: comcast, roku

Cable's Congressional Allies Quickly Urge New FCC Boss To Kill Cable Box Competition Plan

from the fighting-competition-for-the-people dept

Last year, the FCC unveiled a new plan that would require cable operators make their content available via app for third-party cable boxes and other streaming hardware. The goal was to bring a little added competition and openness to the clunky old cable box. But because the FCC's plan would have not only eroded the cable industry's walled-garden control over content -- but $20 billion in annual cable box rental fees -- the cable industry, broadcasters, Congressional allies and even the US Copyright Office got right to work lying about the plan -- repeatedly.

Via an absolute sound wall of disinformation, these collective allies claimed that the FCC's plan would violate copyright (false), confuse consumers (nope), harm minorties (not true), result in skyrocketing piracy (well, no), hurt puppies, and tear a giant hole in the time-space continuum. With these claims popping up in hundreds of newspaper op-ed sections and websites nationwide, the FCC's plan soon ran into some stiff headwinds, with even some of the initial FCC supporters of the plan backing away from it. It was, frankly, one of the most effective lobbying and disinformation campaigns the cable industry has ever fielded.

With the plan on life support, cable industry Congressional allies are now demanding the plan be formally put out of its misery. In a letter sent to new, ultra-industry friendly FCC boss Ajit Pai (pdf), Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden, Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn, and Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Joe Barton urged Pai to close the docket on the set-top box proceeding.

The letter unsurprisingly mirrors most of the falsehoods used by the cable industry to derail the plan, including the idea that bringing competition to the cable box would somehow hamper the cable industry's incredible knack for innovation:

"The regulatory overhang of the set-top box regulation has cast a shadow over investment and innovation in traditional video programming delivery. [W]e urge you to close the proceeding and permit the industry to innovate and serve consumers free from the restrictions of a government-chosen platform."

Of course the whole point of the FCC's plan was to avoid "chosen platforms" entirely, giving consumers the ability to view existing cable content on any device. The letter then proceeds to stroll casually through all of the lies the cable industry has been spreading about the plan for most of the last year, including claims that cable box competition would harm minorities, would harm copyright, and result in nobody making decent television programming ever again:

"The FCC's proposal remains an unnecessary regulatory threat to the content creation and distribution industries. Content creators have argued that the proposed set-top box pan undermined their ability to protect copyrights and contracts. Without a clear indication that the Commission rejects this current proposal, content creators will be hesitant to invest in high-quality video programs. Minority programming creators, in particular, have argued that the Commission's proposal would rob them of audiences and the benefits of hard-negotiated contracts, ultimately limiting the availability of diverse programming to viewers."

That is, once again, all nonsense. This has always been about control, not copyright. The FCC's plan kept all the same copyright protection and licensing contracts intact. And providing consumers access to more content viewing options over less expensive and more open hardware would have only helped minorities and consumers. Meanwhile the claim that art creation will cease to occur completely should ring a few memory bells for those familiar with the recording industry's long-standing myopic frontal assault on natural market evolution.

For the record I never thought the cable box plan was the best use of the agency's time. To me, it seemed like streaming alternatives would force cable to adapt anyway, even if it would have probably taken half-a-decade longer without this FCC nudge. Instead, I thought the FCC would have been better served spending its regulatory calories on the real problem facing consumers and the streaming sector: the lack of broadband competition, and the resulting anti-competitive shenanigans this lack of competition helps cement -- from net neutrality violations to arbitrary and unnecessary broadband usage caps.

Still, the government's willful participation in a massive disinformation and lobbying campaign whose sole function was to protect the cable industry revenues from competition is no less disgusting. Particularly the involvement of the US Copyright Office, and the failure of media outlets to clearly highlight the cable industry financial tethers obviously affixed to countless op-eds and media missives aimed at undermining what really was just an attempt to bring a little competition to a monopolized hardware market.

Given that the new FCC boss is a former Verizon lawyer with a long, proud history of supporting incumbent ISPs and giant cable providers in absolutely everything -- it shouldn't be long before the FCC's cable box plan is finally put out of its misery. Following not-too-far behind should be the FCC's new broadband privacy rules, net neutrality, and, if Trump's advisors mean what they say, the FCC's role as a consumer watchdog itself. You know, to protect minorities, the children, and innovation.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, exaggerations, fcc, set top boxes

The Reason The Copyright Office Misrepresented Copyright Law To The FCC: Hollywood Told It To

from the so-now-we-know dept

There was some oddity over the summer, when the Copyright Office flat out misrepresented copyright law to Congress and the FCC with regard to the impact on copyright of the FCC's (now dead) proposal to create competition among set top box providers. As we've explained over and over again, there were no copyright implications with the FCC's proposal. All it said was that if an authorized user wanted to access authorized content via a third party device, that authorized user should be able to do so. And yet, the Copyright Office, incorrectly, seemed to make up an entirely new exclusivity in copyright law (one that would outlaw DVRs) that basically said not only could a content provider license content to a cable TV provider, but it could also limit the devices on which end users could view that content.

Simply put: that's wrong. That's not how copyright law works, and we've known that since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Betamax case decades ago.

But why would the Copyright Office so misrepresent copyright law? That was the perplexing part. Even with a bunch of copyright professors explaining how wrong the Copyright Office was, the Office still went ahead with its letter. Of course, as with so many policy issues, it really seemed like the Copyright Office was just acting like a lobbying arm of Hollywood.

And that's because it was.

The EFF filed a FOIA request on the Copyright Office's emails and meetings concerning the set top box issue, and -- surprise surprise -- they basically coordinated directly with the MPAA and related lobbyists. The most stunning part? When both the MPAA and the FCC asked to meet with the Copyright Office about this, the Copyright Office quickly scheduled a meeting with... the MPAA. And pushed off the FCC meeting. And they lied to the FCC in the process. Then Copyright Office General Counsel Jacqueline Charlesworth's assistant told the FCC that she was not available to meet... on the very same week that she met with the MPAA over this issue. As EFF notes:

After the FCC announced its intention to break up the set-top box monopoly in February of this year, MPAA quickly called on the Copyright Office to meet on the matter. The documents indicate that the first meeting the Copyright Office held on the set-top box issue was not with the FCC but rather the MPAA. Although both the FCC and MPAA reached out to the Copyright Office in late March, Copyright Office officials met with MPAA on April 11 while postponing and meeting with the FCC a week later. Throughout the spring and summer of this year, the Copyright Office alternated between meetings with the FCC, MPAA, and other major content companies such as Comcast and Viacom. On May 31, just hours after holding a conference call with MPAA, the general counsel of Copyright Office emailed her counterpart at the FCC saying “the proposed rule may in fact implicate some rather serious copyright concerns.”

There was also a bizarre situation, in which a copyright maximalist Congressional Rep reached out to the Copyright Office, claiming that he'd heard from (recently fired) Copyright Office boss, Maria Pallante, basically asking him to officially request the Copyright Office's opinion on the FCC's plans. Others at the Copyright Office -- including Charlesworth -- note that they had been working under the impressiong that the Copyright Office was not seeking an official request from Congress to weigh in. The whole thing is quite bizarre.

But the really telling thing is that the Copyright Office basically spent all its time hearing from one side -- the MPAA and assorted studios, who disliked this idea not for any copyright reasons, but because they just wanted more control -- and totally ignored any other viewpoint (and certainly did not seek it out).

It seems that despite holding itself out as a neutral expert agency on copyright matters, the Copyright Office regularly engaged in discussions with only one set of parties as it formed its opinion. Not once did the agency reach out to the copyright scholars who explained to the FCC that no copyright interests were harmed by the set-top box proposal. Nor did the agency rethink its position when these same parties made clear that what they want is for the FCC to create new legal rights for them that have nothing to do with copyright law. The Copyright Office did eventually meet with a group of companies who are seeking to build competitive set-top boxes that consumers can buy, but that meeting happened on August 2, just one day before the Office issued its public statement. And that statement gives short shrift to the technology companies’ concerns.

When the U.S. Copyright Office waded into the debate, it could have brought an end to the misleading hand-wringing over copyright. Instead, it did the opposite by echoing the MPAA and cable companies, claiming that if cable operators were required to allow customers to use the devices of their choice to view the programs they pay for, the studios’ copyrights would somehow be violated. They even went so far as to say the current copyright law landscape is insufficient and therefore the FCC must do more to protect rightsholders.

An agency that listens only to the views of some industry groups without seeking out additional opinions cannot be a reliably neutral expert for Congress or the FCC. We hope that the FCC will weigh the Copyright Office’s comments appropriately, and resist efforts to derail the agency's work to end the set-top box monopoly.

If you read through the document the differences here are quite stark. There are many, many meetings with Hollywood, and many of the emails are jokey and informal (my favorite is when long term NBC Universal lobbyist Alec French tries to joke around with Jacqueline Charlesworth by calling her Jacqui, and then realizes he may have insulted her). The emails for the small group of set top box companies are much more detailed and formal. This is yet another example of how the Copyright Office is captured by Hollywood.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, fcc, hollywood, jacqueline charlesworth, lobbying, maria pallante, set top boxes
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Applauds Derailment of FCC Cable Box Competition Plan Because, Uh, Jobs!

from the overlords-of-nonsense dept

Last week we noted how the FCC had to scrap its plan to bring competition to the cable box after an unprecedented PR and disinformation campaign by the cable and entertainment industries. In short, using consultants, think tanks, payrolled politicians, a soundwall of misleading editorials and even the US Copyright Office, the cable industry was able to convince many in the press, public and even at the FCC that the plan would have ripped the planet off its very orbital access, violated copyright, eroded consumer privacy, and even harmed diversity programming.

In reality, the cable sector's opposition was about two things: $21 billion in captive box rental revenues, and a fear of a loss of control. Being an expert in the latter, the MPAA of course was quick to issue a statement applauding the "delay" in the FCC's proceeding:

"The MPAA is pleased that the FCC is taking more time, and we hope they use it to ensure any set-top box proposal remains consistent with copyright policy and avoids harming creators,” said MPAA Chairman and CEO Senator Chris Dodd, who emphasized that his organization, along with “virtually the entire creative community” is “standing up for copyright and the rights of creators."

Except again, the cable box plan has nothing to do with copyright. The rules would have simply required cable companies pass on their existing programming (and all DRM) to third party hardware vendors, resulting in more competition in cable boxes and ultimately more open and cheaper boxes. Because that might just give consumers a little more control, the MPAA joined the hissy fit parade of inaccurate implausibilities. And to justify trying to keep the cable box locked down and shitty, the best the MPAA can apparently do is reiterate some nonsensical talking points about jobs:

"We support the FCC’s goal of promoting set-top box competition, but we continue to urge the Commission to forge a path that does not undermine the creative economy,” Dodd continued. “Copyright employs more than 5.5 million U.S. workers and generates over $1 trillion in economic value – incentivizing innovation and investment in creative works enjoyed by millions around the world."

Except the FCC's proposal wouldn't hurt jobs in the slightest. Under the FCC's plan, customers still would pay for cable, they'd just have more flexibility in how that programming is consumed. And if anything, you'd see more jobs as the cable hardware itself was opened to multiple hardware competitors and streaming vendors looking to make headway in the space. But just like their previous whining session on this subject, the MPAA can't just admit it's terrified of evolution and consumer empowerment, so it apparently has to conflate "copyright" with a loss of control.

Meanwhile, while many media outlets continue to insist this plan is simply on hold, there's really only two likely outcomes moving forward thanks to cable lobbyists, the US Copyright Office, and folks like the MPAA: either the plan gets scrapped entirely, or the end result winds up being so watered down as to be utterly useless.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, fcc, set top boxes, stb
Companies: mpaa

A Massive Cable Industry Disinformation Effort Just Crushed The FCC's Plan For Cable Box Competition

from the thanks-for-'helping' dept

Back in February the FCC proposed a new plan to bring competition to the cable box. Under the plan, cable providers would need to provide their programming to third party hardware vendors without the need for a CableCARD. The goal? Bring some competition to bear on a stagnant, captive market, resulting in cheaper, more open, and higher quality cable boxes. But because the plan would demolish $21 billion in rental fees while eroding sector control, the cable industry launched one of the most unprecedented lobbying and disinformation efforts I've ever seen in 16 years of covering the sector.

Politicians loyal to the cable industry wrote letters lambasting the FCC for "jeopardizing the incredible evolution of video distribution services," falsely comparing the idea to Popcorn Time. A flood of editorials magically began appearing in newspapers country wide claiming the FCC's plan would boost piracy, hurt consumer privacy, and even "steal the future." The cable sector even trotted out Jesse Jackson, who claimed in a horribly misleading op-ed that increased cable box competition was akin to the "snarling dogs, water hoses and church bombings" of America's racist history. Seriously.

Of course given our news outlets don't think it's particularly important to highlight financial conflicts of interest, most of these editorials were presented as purely objective insight into the FCC's proposal. Even the US Copyright Office joined the festivities, falsely claiming the FCC's plan would "interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law" despite IP experts stating it would do nothing of the sort.

And this cavalcade of lobbying, disinformation, and hand-wringing worked absolute wonders.

Apparently informed by all the wrong people, FCC Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn began waffling after voting yes on the original proposal. That forced FCC boss Tom Wheeler to scrap his original plan, releasing a revamped, weaker app-based alternative proposal based largely on the cable industry's recommendations. Despite this new plan effectively being their idea, cable companies like Comcast still complained, falsely claiming the FCC's plan would "stop the apps revolution dead in its tracks by imposing an overly complicated government licensing regime and heavy-handed regulation in a fast-moving technological space."

Yes, because when I think about "fast moving" innovation, the dusty old cable box with its circa-1998 GUI is usually the first thing to come to mind.

As a result of this collective feigned hysteria, when the FCC's latest plan for cable box competition went up for a vote yesterday morning, the agency found it no longer had the votes to move forward. Wheeler and Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel issued a joint statement that goes out of its way to avoid noting that Wheeler lost his fellow commissioners' support:

"We have made tremendous progress—and we share the goal of creating a more innovative and inexpensive market for these consumer devices," Chairman Tom Wheeler and fellow Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel said today in a joint statement. "We are still working to resolve the remaining technical and legal issues and we are committed to unlocking the set-top box for consumers across this country."

By "technical and legal issues" the FCC means it no longer had the votes to move forward after Commissioners buckled under the pressure of a tidal wave of bullshit. And while the FCC says the plan will "remain under consideration," it's entirely possible that the entire effort just died a quiet death in committee. That's not the end of the world given the cable industry (and the cable box) will likely implode on its own in the face of streaming competitors, and it might make more sense for the FCC to use its regulatory calories on things like broadband competition and usage caps anyway.

That said, the cable industry's ability to manipulate the public, press, and regulators in this fashion isn't our nation's finest hour. And while it's possible the FCC could revisit the vote, the end product may be so watered down as to be useless for consumers. Believing they've done yeoman's work in defending the cable industry's walled garden empires, some politicians took to applauding Rosenworcel's expected decision to "stand up for content creators" in voting down the FCC plan:Comcast also was quick to applaud the FCC for heeding the call of the sound wall of "respected third parties" opposed to the FCC's plan:

"The FCC made the right decision this morning to delay its vote on the set-top box item. It is now critical that the Commission heed the bipartisan calls of dozens of Members of Congress and respected third parties and release its new proposal and associated rules to allow the public to provide comment...Based on the limited information available from the Chairman’s Fact Sheet and op-ed, a broad range of content creators, civil rights organizations, labor unions, and others have concluded that the Chairman’s new approach does not solve the copyright, privacy, innovation and other significant concerns that were implicated in his discredited original proposal – and suffers from the same legal infirmities."

Right, but again, that's bullshit. Most of the opponents listed by Comcast were paid by the cable, broadcast and entertainment industries in one form or another to falsely malign the plan. The plan doesn't hurt copyright, it doesn't hurt privacy, and it certainly doesn't harm racial diversity. What it would harm is the cable and entertainment industry's monopoly over cable hardware, and the $21 billion in captive revenues it enjoys annually. It would also most certainly harm the walled garden that consistently protects the cable sector from pesky things like consumer choice.

While Wheeler today proclaimed that the delayed vote was "simply a matter of running out of time," it was notably more than that. It was another disgusting example of how the US Copyright Office frequently fights against the best interest of the public, regulators aren't getting sound advice, media outlets are thrilled to regurgitate pay-to-play industry garbage as objective insight, and Congress remains happy and willing to prioritize campaign contributions over consumer welfare. Wonderful job, everybody. Kudos all around.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, disinformation, fcc, set top boxes, tom wheeler

Law Professor Mark Lemley: Hollywood Is Simply Wrong About FCC's Set Top Box Plan

from the not-a-copyright-issue dept

We've been discussing for a while now about how the MPAA, with the help of the Copyright Office, has been propping up the complete myth that the FCC's plan to create more competition in the cable set top box space involves violating the copyrights of studios. It's a complete myth. The cable industry has been leading the charge here, mainly because it makes billions of dollars by charging people to "rent" its crappy boxes. But it found a strong ally in copyright maximalists who have repeatedly misrepresented the proposal. As we noted, the Copyright Office put out a report that flat out lied about what the FCC's proposal entailed and about how copyright itself works (arguing that contracts between two third parties could somehow eliminate the fair use rights of private citizens). And, incredibly, the basic argument being put forth by copyright maximalists, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that VCRs and DVRs are illegal too.

That's not how copyright law actually works -- but the message has caught on, and the FCC has already been forced to weaken its proposal -- and the industry is still bitching about it.

Thankfully, we're finally starting to see some copyright experts speak up about just how wrong Hollywood and the Copyright Office are on this. Mark Lemley, by far the most cited intellectual property professor (who is also a practicing lawyer), has written up a piece for the Hill that rips to shreds the idea that the FCC's plan somehow would implicate Hollywood's copyrights. As he notes, they're totally overstating what copyright allows:

The MPAA’s argument that studios have the right to control the device on which you view your content reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright gives its owner the right to control the making of copies and public performances of a work. But it does not give them control over any use of a work. That’s no accident. Once the copyright owner has been paid once for a particular copy, its control over that copy ends. That’s why I can lend a book to friends, or sell my used record collection outright.

True, there are some things I can ‘t do even with a copy of a movie or song I own. I can’t upload it on a file-sharing site, for instance, and I can’t play it on the radio. But that’s because doing those things either makes a new copy or makes a new, public performance of the work.

The studios have already been paid for the movies shown on a cable or satellite service. Indeed, they’ve been paid specifically for the right to publicly perform the work by transmitting it to my (and everyone else’s) home.

And here, copyright law says something very important to copyright owners: that’s all you get. Once the cable companies have paid the MPAA for the right to deliver their movie into my home, the MPAA loses control over how I choose to watch their movie in the privacy of my own home. I can record it on a DVR and watch it whenever I want. I can watch it on a big-screen TV or a small one, with the sound on or off, in one sitting or many, while fast-forwarding through parts I don’t like or rewinding to rewatch parts I do. I can watch it again and again. Most important, I can watch it on any device I want, including my computer, my iPad, or my phone.

And, while the MPAA and its supporters keep calling the FCC proposal a "compulsory license," Lemley points out that it's not a compulsory license that lets you record a TV program to your VCR or DVR, and neither is this:

That isn’t a “compulsory license” of copyrights; it’s a limit on the scope of those rights. That limit exists even if copyright owners try to declare that it doesn’t. This is the law. It has always been the law. Every effort by copyright owners to control how I watch a show in my own home has ended in failure.

Unfortunately, this blatantly false attack by Hollywood and the Copyright Office on the FCC's plan has been effective. It seems unlikely that the plan will go through, and what's troubling about it is that it's all based on flat-out falsehoods by Hollywood, the Copyright Office and its supporters.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, fcc, mark lemley, set top box, set top boxes
Companies: mpaa

Comcast Already Whining About New FCC Cable Box Plan, Despite It Being The Cable Industry's Idea

from the ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept

We've noted how the FCC's plan to bring competition to the cable box fell apart over the last few months, thanks to a massive disinformation effort by the cable industry involving a flood of hugely misleading editorials and some help from the US Copyright Office. In short the cable industry used a sound wall of hired voices to claim that cable box competition would hurt consumer privacy, violate copyright, result in a huge spike in piracy, and was even racist. Despite these claims being nonsense, the unprecedented PR campaign managed to sway several FCC Commissioners that had originally voted yes on the proposal.

With his ally commissioners waffling on the original plan, FCC boss Tom Wheeler was forced to offer up a new watered down proposal (pdf). Under the new plan, cable operators would have two years to develop apps that let all cable customers access content (small cable ops are exempt) on the streaming hardware of their choice. In an editorial defending the plan being circulated to numerous websites, Wheeler makes it abundantly clear that cable providers can use any standard of their choice to develop the app, and have control of their content from end to end:

"While our primary focus during this proceeding was to promote consumer choice and fulfill our congressional mandate, we recognize that protecting the legitimate copyright interests of content creators is also key to serving the public interest. To ensure that all copyright and licensing agreements will remain intact, the delivery of pay-TV programming will continue to be overseen by pay-TV providers from end-to-end. The proposed rules also maintain important protections regarding emergency alerting, accessibility and privacy."

Except the copyright concerns weren't legitimate, because cable box competition has nothing to do with copyright. The cable industry's opposition to real cable box competition is driven by two simple things: a desire to retain control as users flee legacy TV (or more accurately the illusion of control), and a desire to protect $20 billion in annual revenue from cable box rental fees. But the sector obviously can't just come out and say this, so instead they've hidden their motivation behind a litany of hyperbole and bloviation.

Amusingly, it was the cable industry that originally approached an "app based" alternative to Wheeler's initial plan (the flaws in which we've previously dissected here). Yet it didn't take Comcast long to circulate a statement to various press outlets stating that it didn't like this new proposal, either:

"While we appreciate that Chairman Wheeler has abandoned his discredited proposal to break apart cable and satellite services, his latest tortured approach is equally flawed. He claims that his new proposal builds on the marketplace success of apps, but in reality, it would stop the apps revolution dead in its tracks by imposing an overly complicated government licensing regime and heavy-handed regulation in a fast-moving technological space.

By "discredited" proposal, Comcast means that it paid an ocean of think tankers, academics, lobbyists, consultants and others to lambaste the plan at every conceivable opportunity (with news outlets rarely disclosing the financial ties). And by "fast moving technological space" Comcast means a sector historically known for doing everything in its power to not only cripple consumer choice, but punish consumers for seeking out better alternatives to legacy TV. And again, the FCC effectively gave the cable sector the app-based approach its own lobbyists pushed for, and Comcast's still not happy:

"It perpetuates many of the concerns that led hundreds of Members of Congress, content creators, diversity and civil rights organizations, labor unions, and over 300,000 individuals to object to his original flawed approach, including problems with privacy, copyright protection, content security, and innovation. Heavy-handed government technology mandates have a long history of failure. The Chairman’s approach would likely meet the same fate, while causing real damage to the thriving apps marketplace and real harm to consumers."

Again, it's wise of Comcast to avoid mentioning that Comcast paid for, either overtly or covertly, the lion's share of opposition to the FCC's plan. It's also probably smart of Comcast to avoid mentioning that the FCC's counter proposal is almost exactly what cable industry lobbyists asked for. The FCC says it will vote (again) on its cable box proposal at its meeting on September 29, meaning the next few weeks you'll see a barrage of new editorials trying to claim that cable box competition will hurt the children, frighten puppies, and almost certainly rip a giant hole in the time-space continuum.

Filed Under: apps, competition, copyright, fcc, set top boxes
Companies: comcast