The 463: Inside Tech

Talent Acquisition

You might have seen that the South Park guys got a sweet deal that will let them share advertising revenue for their online presence.  Cynthia Brumfield writes:

The game-changing part of the deal is that Stone and Parker will get 50% of all ad revenue, an unthinkable concept in the TV industry, where talent has had to resort (think Seinfeld and the cast of “Friends”) to threatened no-shows to reap more profits from their labors.....

...Admittedly Stone and Parker have the swack to demand such revenue splits, while up-and-coming creative types probably still have to settle for what they can get. But the balance of power in the entertainment business is no doubt shifting away from the big studios and networks and toward those who can create.

This got me to thinking (again) about the possibilities of an upcoming writers and actors strike.  The word is that big issues like Internet revenue residuals make the possibility of a work stoppage very real...

The threat of a strike by writers, and next year by actors, is seen as more real than any time in the past two decades, as activist guild leadership take on powerful studios and networks over a string of divisive issues that include compensation for works distributed on new media platforms, an overall pay increase and a controversial proposal by producers to roll back residual payments.  (Hollywood Today)

The connection between South Park and a possible strike are little things called choice and leverage.  In past conflicts between the talent and producers, where could the writers and actors threaten to go?  Community theater? 

Seemingly, they now have an unprecedented platform to display their skills and get paid for them in new ways via the Web.  They could also have opportunistic Internet companies sniffing a rare chance to pick off talent from the Hollywood structure.

What is less clear is whether SAG or the WGA would embrace the new media world as a collective body (as opposed to individual writers or actors) and, even if they did, whether this would be reciprocated.  Union rules and Internet company mindsets couldn't be less aligned.

Broadband Rationing as a Competitive Weapon?

On Internet video application Joost from NewTeeVee's Jackson West today...

The fundamental problem that Joost faces is the fact that the broadband available to North American households simply isn’t fast enough for them to provide image quality comparable to digital cable or satellite, much less high-definition video....

...My concern is that with DSL provider AT&T moving into IPTV, and cable Internet providers already delivering video, what little competition there is in America for consumer broadband providers, any incentive to increase speeds (especially the upstream bandwidth) could hit a wall of corporate self-interest. After all, why should companies like Comcast offer the kind of high speed broadband enjoyed in Europe and Asia when it would simply enable companies like Joost to compete with the company’s own digital video offerings?

Of course, with the generous assumption that broadband speeds are eventually going to increase enough one way or another, a Comcast could also look at the flip side of the equation and buy a Joost to extend its platform to the Internet.

3Qs: Will Rodger, CCIA -- Starting a Fair Fight

Will Rodger is tech policy old school. I remember way back in '97 or so when I would fly out to DC and sit down with Will, the tech policy journalist, to spin yarns about TechNet -- then, the new kid on the block. Will was one of the few DC reporters at the time who actually understood technology and could work his way around a Netscape browser with ease.

After covering many industry fights at a reporter, Will has been directly involved in his fair share of skirmishes since joining the The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). And, as director of public policy for the group, he has an interesting new battle on his hands that goes directly at some big players.

This week, the CCIA launched its Defend Fair Use initiative with a shot across the bow. The organization that represents Google, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Oracle, Yahoo! and others announced:

that it has filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint on behalf of consumers against Major League Baseball, the National Football League, NBC/Universal and several other corporations. CCIA alleges that the named corporations have misled consumers for years, often misrepresenting their rights through deceptive and threatening statements.

Y'know, statements like this:

Here's how the New York Times covered the CCIA's move.

We thought it as good of time as any to drop 3Qs on Will about the Defend Fair Use campaign... (the Qs and responses after the jump...)

Internet Video Regulation: Drip....Drip...Drip....

Regulation doesn't have to happen in a big swooping gesture (see Patriot Act).  More frequently, it happens through little drips -- until suddenly you're standing in three feet of water.

Well, kids, the roof just sprung a leak this afternoon.

The Senate Commerce Committee passed the "Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007" this afternoon.  Some are calling it the V-Chip 2.0 bill.

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) is the lead sponsor, and when he introduced the bill back in February, he said:

"Today's technology to protect children from indecency goes above and beyond the capabilities of the V-Chip. And with over 500 channels and video streaming, parents could use a little help. The time for the FCC to act on behalf of our children is now. My legislation will help make sure it happens."

Great intentions.  Really.  And, an approach that focuses on empowering parents, too.  Well done.

Yet, PFF's content regulation expert Adam Thierer says not so fast.  He published a paper this week that knocks the legislation and suggest that it would have many unintended consequences if passed.  You can review them all in Thierer's full report (PDF). 

I want to focus on one here.  It's the regulatory creep toward treating Internet and wirelessly delivered video the same as broadcast content. We've noted many times here that efforts in the name of protecting kids could be the bridge drug toward justifying regulations across platforms.  After all, from the perspective of a regulator who looks and the end and not the means, if "bad" content is getting to kids, why does the delivery system or the type of device they are seeing it on matter?

The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007's language pretty much spells this out:

"the Federal Communications Commission shall consider advanced blocking technologies that may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms."

Thierer's perspective after the jump...

YouTube Debate in Overdrive

Watching, analyzing, and dissecting tonight's CNN*YouTube Democratic Debate so you don't have to is the Tech Daily Dose. If you missed it, just review their coverage.

The guy above asked a good question: Which Republican would you choose as your running mate? TDD said this was the answer from Biden and Edwards:

Joe Biden: Warning that naming names would hurt the designated Republican, Biden named Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

John Edwards agreed that Hagel would be a good choice.

Personally, while the debate format may be So Now that it's gimmicky, this process can't be any worse than the usual stilted debates encumbered by 101 rules and the (metaphoric) cast of thousands that take the life out of the event. A little experimentation is a good thing, And, maybe this will even help bring some life into the Main Event after the primaries.

When Obsessions Meet

Because of the obvious impact of Google on the tech policy scene since we started blogging more than 2.5 years ago, the company has had its disproportionate share of coverage here.

Yet, another minor obsession is less obvious. It's the EU's Television Without Frontiers directive that morphed into the less memorable but more palatable "Audiovisual Media Services Directive".  We always thought that its debate was symbolic of clash of emerging technologies with old regulatory structures and thinking.  Potentially treating Web video like the BBC's over-the-air broadcast was worrisome to say the least.  But, regardless, we were seemingly among a handful in the States that cared (or, at least blogged about it).  Our coverage is here, here, here and here.

Yesterday, European policy lead Patricia Moll used Google's shiny new policy blog to try to put a nail in the coffin of any attempt to make user generated content and other on-demand Web mediums part of the catch-all regulatory harmonization...

When discussions on the directive began there was little distinction between the two types of content, meaning that YouTube and Google Video would have had to comply with a complex set of rules designed to control traditional broadcasting. Thankfully, this was changed in the final draft of the legislation, which must still be voted on by the European Parliament. We believe that on-demand content shouldn't be regulated in the same way as traditional broadcasting because the two are quite different. People control the online content they demand, compared to the content which is broadcast on television....

...The directive contains important measures to protect users, particularly children, from harmful and illegal content. There are also new rules to make sure that on-demand content doesn't feature material inciting hatred based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, nationality, disability, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation. Google supports these rules, which reflect the rules we already have in place through our user agreements.

We have talked to politicians and decision makers about the importance of empowering people to use the net and other platforms safely, and to make informed decisions through the use of filtering and labeling systems.

Now I Know Why Subtitles Don't Bother Me (The FCC May Disagree)

Interesting times. On one side of the Atlantic, you have FCC commissioners calling for more regulation of sex and violence on TV. And, on the other side, you have the EU proudly posting a PG-13 video of Made-in-Europe sex scenes (see the above).

Oh, but it would be so easy if things were that black and white. In fact, while the video has currently been viewed approximately 3 million more times than the EU's gripping "Road Safety is Everyone's Business" clip, the sex video does have it's fair share of critics in Europeland. Der Spiegel reports:

A Polish member of European Parliament from the conservative party League of Polish Families says the commission is using "immoral methods" to connect with European citizens.

A number of MEPs from the UK have also complained in the British press about the video. "They do have an image problem," Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris told the BBC in reference to the EU, "but I think cobbling together 44 seconds of soft porn on the Internet is not a brilliant way of solving it." Euro-skeptic MEP Godfrey Bloom told the tabloid Sun that it was "cheap, tawdry and tacky."

BTW, have I hallucinated on trips to London, or doesn't the tabloid Sun have a feature called Page 3 that prominently displays topless woman? Must have.

Regardless, a EU spokesperson responds in the International Herald Tribune:

"The European Union is not the Bible Belt. These clips come from award-winning films and they show the EU's rich cinematic heritage, which we can all be proud of."

Okay, maybe there really is a continental divide. Can you imagine someone at the FCC spitting out a "we're not in the Bible Belt" line in between cigarette drags?

Which brings us to the all important segue. Media and television industry analyst Shelly Palmer reminds us. He was at a dinner recently that featured FCC commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate. She remarked, according to the Palmer that “the biggest issue” she faces is....

New Copyright Alliance Launches

With the RIAA, MPAA, and the Business Software Alliance getting hammered on Capitol Hill by unfriendly legislators fed by massive campaign donations from the likes of Google, Larry Lessig's PAC and EFF slush funds, it was time for the big content players to lick their wounds and form an alliance.

Okay, so today's launch of the Copyright Alliance didn't exactly happen that way. Instead, said content organizations and other like NAB, Major League Baseball, the NBA, Disney, Sony, Microsoft, Viacom, NewsCorp,, Entertainment Software Association, American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, American Society of Composers, etc. decided that regardless of what may be happening to your business model in the future, when you have a position of strength in DC, you should use it to get even more strength.

Brook Boliek at the Hollywood Reporter notes that there is precedence for the group:

Patrick Ross, executive director of the organization, said that the group helps fill a gap that was left when former MPAA chief Jack Valenti died. Valenti ran a similar group known as the Copyright Alliance that went into eclipse after his death last month.

"That was a creature of Jack Valenti," he said. "With this, we hope to preserve that broad group."

We look forward to doing a 3Qs with Patrick about the Alliance and his new job post PFF. We might ask him if he foresees other technology companies (besides Microsoft) joining the group.

The Military Website Ban: How It's Playing in Topeka

The ban of the use of 13 (quite) disparate Web sites and services on the U.S. military network was announced earlier this week. While the action was covered by the Washington Post (front page), the San Francisco Chronicle, broadcast outlets like the Bay Area's KTVU (above) and the Daily Show, I was surprised by the relative lack of blogtopia chatter about the move (there were notable exceptions).

So, instead of finding worthy discussion via Technorati, it proved more fruitful to go to places like Topeka, Corpus Christi, and Lubbock for reaction.

Todd Garvin, a columnist from Glasgow, Kentucky writes:

Congressional Future of Video Hearing: Closing Statements

Finally, closing one-minute statements from panelists during the Congressional Telecom and Internet Subcommittee "Future of Video" hearing.  Footage taken by C-SPAN.

Featuring Mark Cuban (HDNet), Blake Krikorian (CEO, Sling Media), Chad Hurley (YouTube), Gina Lombardi (President, MediaFLO; Qualcomm), Ben Pyne (Disney and ESPN networks), Tom Rogers (TiVo), and Phil Rosenthal (Writers Guild of America, West and Screen Actors Guild).

 

Other coverage includes PC World, Wired's blog, paidContent, IP Democracy, NewTeeVee and CNET.