Cable Tangled Up In Copy-War Replay
By Craig Leddy -- Multichannel News, 1/29/2001
In the early '80s, a new technology had Hollywood in a tizzy. It challenged traditional programming-distribution methods and raised concerns over widespread movie piracy.
That technology was the videocassette recorder.
At the time, official Washington was embroiled in a fight between high-powered, Gucci-clad lobbyists for the film studios, who sought to control their copyrighted content, and the consumer-electronics industry, which was joined by consumer groups that advocated home-video recording rights.
Innovations were expanding the VCR's capabilities. In 1983 in Chicago, ABC's home-video unit and Sony Corp. tested Tele1st, a service that beamed pay programming overnight for playback later on specially equipped VCRs-a precursor to today's personal video recorders.
The industry feud prompted concern-and ridicule-over the ludicrous notion that SWAT teams would burst into living rooms to arrest citizens for illegally recording Billy Jack.
In 1984, the Supreme Court appeared to resolve the issue through its landmark Sony Betamax decision, giving consumers the right to copy programming for private use.
But today, concerns over piracy are as big as ever and another fight is escalating between Hollywood and the CE companies, with the cable industry stuck in the middle. Even the standing of the Betamax decision is being brought into question.
The fight's outcome will have a significant bearing on the ability to distribute and copy digital content. It could affect a broad range of services, including premium networks, pay-per-view, video-on-demand, personal video recording and broadband streaming.
Stung by Internet music services such as Napster Inc., the entertainment industry is seeking to prevent its video equivalent. With today's technology, an enterprising thief could quickly send a digital-quality copy of Dude, Where's My Car? zooming over the Great Wall of China and across the Himalayas.
During the past several months, Hollywood's troops have pressed for digital security protection at the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Copyright Office and in ongoing negotiations with CE representatives over high-definition TV. The broadcast industry also is advocating signal and copying protections.
Consumer electronics companies, which are promoting a security technology called "5C," claim Hollywood is seeking Draconian restrictions that will undermine PVRs and increase studio control over programming supply and demand.
In December, the cable industry became further immersed in the issue. That's when Cable Television Laboratories Inc. issued a licensing plan to certify that commercially available OpenCable digital set-tops can employ copy protections.
CableLabs' license is called PHILA (pronounced FI-la). It stands for Point-of-Deployment Host Interface License Agreement.
Cable operators have the discretion to utilize various anti-theft protections, but they must also appease copyright owners.
Under PHILA, content providers can demand copying restrictions such as "copy once," "copy no more" and "copy never"-which means subscribers with PVRs could be unable to record some programs or see them automatically erased after a short time (Multichannel News, Jan. 15, 2001, p. 51).
Obviously, cable operators want to prevent piracy. But industry representatives are concerned that satellite providers or other competitors could gain a competitive advantage by committing to more studio-friendly protections in deals for first-run movie rights.
Worse, stringent conditions on PVRs could render the devices virtually obsolete. Several MSOs are engaged in limited PVR deployments, while satellite companies offer that capability built in to their hardware.
Hollywood, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, disputes the contention that it's trying to wipe out the PVR. The MPAA claims it is seeking to protect copyrighted material in the face of an array of emerging digital technologies.
The MPAA also contends that the Betamax decision is limited to the time-shifting of analog programming and does not apply to digital recording.
Recent reports have said the studios will join with telephone companies to provide VOD via digital subscriber lines. Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment is also reportedly leading an effort to launch an Internet movie service.
Predicting what the studios will do could be as difficult as guessing John Malone's next move. But implicit in those reports is that studios are seeking control of their content-and considering broadband distribution through means other than cable.
Meanwhile, development is continuing on anti-theft chips and other technological solutions for providing digital-rights management. But these technologies cannot address the business consequences of protecting content.
In a letter responding to criticism from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), the MPAA asks, "Is there any publicinterest.in allowing consumers to make multiple copies of broadcast programming, or to retransmit broadcast programs over the Internet?"
Much of the Napster generation would say yes. They truly believe they are entitled to freely swap music or video files. The entertainment industry has failed to adequately address this cultural phenomenon-and that's why it got blindsided by Napster.
Rather than thwarting digital innovation, a balanced approach is needed: one that addresses everyone from law-abiding citizens who are willing to pay to see and record content to those who wish to engage in piracy for monetary gain.
It looks like the '80s all over again.
