On Monday mornings, I typically scan the trades for news from the “outside world” that affects our business. There’s lots of news these days; long overdue telephone intercarrier compensation reform with the FCC , universal service reform for both telephone and data, internet network neutrality, etc. And all of these things are important, complex, and weighty issues. But one item caught my eye this morning that might actually be of interest to the readership of our technical blog, though, strictly speaking, is not a technical issue.
It appears that one of our competitors, Time Warner Cable has gotten into some hot water by offering an iPad app to customers for viewing content they pay for in their homes. Apparently, Viacom, Discovery, and Fox sent cease and desist letters to TWC, demanding that their content be pulled from the iPad application they began offering last month. Time Warner countered with legal maneuvers of its own, filing a request for summary judgement in a U.S. District Court in southern New York.
In a statement, Time Warner Cable’s executive VP and General Counsel said, “We have steadfastly maintained that we have the rights to allow our customers to view this programming in their homes, over our cable systems, without artificial limits on the screens they can use to do so, and we are asking the court to confirm our view.” Further, TWC launched the very next day an additional 17 channels from content providers who apparently had no problem with the iPad app Time Warner released.
It appears to me that technology should trump the “old school” thinking on this issue. If the assumed goal of a content provider is to have as many eyes as possible viewing content it produces, why would it want to limit any screen that a paying customer owns from viewing content ? Go figure.
Regardless of your point of view on this issue, it promises to be hotly debated for the next several weeks. This issue is also emblematic of many other issues where technology that is widely embraced by the public ends up trumping industry policy.
When the VCR was first introduced many years ago, the video content creation industry reacted by petitioning the US Congress to ban the devices outright. When that failed, they tried to push through a “tax” on blank video tapes that would discourage their use. Virtually the same playbook was read in the audio content industry when digital audio recorders (DAT) were introduced in the early ’90’s. Complex legal maneuvers, copy protection schemes, petitions to government authority, and ultimately the technologies themselves came and went. None of the histrionics of a slightly paranoid industry made it off the block.
Here’s the thing. Most people understand that the creation of quality content costs money, and are willing to pay for quality entertainment, whether music or video production. Those very very few that are bent on bootlegging or infringing copyrights will likely find a way to do so, in spite of DRM protections.
Until next time….
Loading ...