[opendtv] Re: Moonves: We're Willing to Talk to Aereo | Broadcasting & Cable
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:03:36 -0400
On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:11 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Actually, yes. I think the six Supreme Court justices that voted against
> Aereo are a bit like the very, very many people out there who seem unable to
> grasp the concept of TV watching as another form of web browsing. We've
> talked about this in the past. It's an odd mental block, which makes people
> think that AppleTV or Roku, and their ilk, are fantastic innovations that TV
> must have to move forward.
>
That is patently absurd Bert. The ability to deliver entertainment and other
forms of video content via the Internet is well established - it has been at
least since the start of this decade. The Supremes CLEARLY understand that the
Internet will become the PRIMARY infrastructure for the delivery of video
content. No other infrastructure can deliver content anywhere to any device.
The devices that receive these "video bits" are only important in the context
of where the consumption takes place:
1. Smart TVs and add on boxes for existing TVs - family room or second TVs in
homes and information displays in schools and corporate environments.
2. PCs and "mobile desktops - corporate and home offices and travel (hotels,
etc.)
3. Tablets - anywhere, anytime
4. Smart phones - anywhere, but limited by screen size
The issue that the Supremes addressed is the protection of content copyright.
What Aereo did was not illegal per se' - Aereo simply bypassed the copyright
protection afforded to FOTA signals. This too is obvious, as the first reaction
from Aereo was give us the compulsory license and we will pay.
By now you should understand that the content conglomerates have spent decades
going after anyone who uses the Internet to provide access to their content
without paying for the privilege. They moved too late with music, and the ways
music is distributed has been changed in fundamental ways - the Internet killed
the "music bundle" (the album, CDs, etc.).
They had time to make certain that this WOULD NOT happen again with video
content. Protection of the "TV bundle" is absolutely critical. It is blatantly
illegal "tying" under anti-trust laws, but has been protected at every turn by
legislation and legal challenges. What the Supremes just did is entirely
consistent with the ways that copyright has been extended to protect the
content congloms.
We can argue about the "political paybacks" and the way the media has
transformed our social and political mores, but it is absolutely clear that the
politicians are enabling the content oligopoly, and will continue to do so as
content moves to Internet distribution.
> That's doubtful, Craig. You attribute to malice what is clearly a case of
> utter cluelessness. I take Aereo as just the first attempt, and not very well
> executed at that. Their dime sized antenna pretense was not a good move, and
> it backfired. But trying to stop progress is ultimately a losing battle,
> every single time.
This is nothing more that a legal precedent. Only the content owners, and those
to which they license their content, have the right to distribute it. The FOTA
broadcast system is available to the consumer, but retransmission is only legal
if the content owners are compensated.
Nothing here stopped progress. As you point out there are already many portals
that offer the content owned by the congloms via the Internet. The content
owners can do this themselves or license the content to Netflix et al.
>
> Also, Moonves and the rest might discover before long that 90 percent of
> their audience is no longer watching from MVPDs and that a growing number are
> actually using the Internet sites they already provide. Or is he unaware of
> those? Read the article and tell me where there's a hint of the networks' own
> web sites.
You should look more closely at what Moonves said. 90% of consumption of CBS
content takes place via some other infrastructure than FOTA broadcast. This may
include the 83% that subscribe to the bundle, and those who have cut the cord.
But it also includes MVPD subscribers viewing content delivered via the
Internet. And it includes all of the ways that the congloms license and
distribute content to international markets.
Moonves understands that for now Internet distribution is "additive" to the
MVPD baseline. And he understands that consumers are accepting the concept that
a subscription to the MVPD bundle provides access to this content on mobile
Internet devices.
All that matters is that the content congloms manage the transition to Internet
distribution, keeping the total revenues generated at current or higher levels.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: