The long-running battle at the Federal Communications Commission over the MPAA’s petition for a waiver of the rules banning the use of selectable output controls on devices that can receive TV signals is turning into a textbook example of how regulation can distort business decisions. I almost hate to write that sentence because I don’t want to sound like some sort of Cato Institute ideologue with a jones for deregulation. But the SOC debate has become terminally absurd.
And petty. Just before Thanksgiving, the MPAA filed an ex parte brief with the commission in which it called Public Knowledge legal director Harold Feld, in so many words, a liar.
First and foremost, MPAA would like to respond to certain Public Knowledge statements about the waiver request that, quite frankly, constitute blatant untruths. MPAA appreciates that different parties can reach different conclusions about matters of public policy. Indeed, MPAA has welcomed the opportunity to engage with Public Knowledge and its allies in an honest and open debate about the merits of the SOC waiver request. Regrettably, however, Public Knowledge, apparently having determined that its arguments on the merits have failed to gain traction with the Commission, has resorted to outright distortion and falsehoods. In particular, MPAA believes that the Feld Video Blog contains statements that are simply and irrefutably untrue.
For those joining us late, the MPAA’s petition has been pending before the commission for more than two years, but was victim of a pocket veto by the previous FCC chairman, who refused to put it before the other commissioners for a vote. With the Barack Obama Administration now in charge, however, there is a new FCC lineup and new chairman, and the studios have tried to capitalize on the changes to breathe new life into the old petition.
In very broad strokes, the MPAA argues that its member companies would like to introduce a new high-definition video-on-demand window for movies immediately following the theatrical window and before those movies are released on DVD and Blu-ray. The new window, according to the MPAA, would allow consumers to watch movies on their home theater systems earlier than they can today based on the current sequence of rlease windows, which generally doesn’t make movies available for home viewing until three to six months after their theatrical release when they come out on DVD. But the studios would only do that, the MPAA argues, if they’re allowed to remotely disable any analog outputs on receiving devices by inserting the appropriate “flag” into the VOD signal.
Why? Because analog outputs on HDTV sets and other devices do not support digital copy protection encryption like the High-bandwidth Digital Copy Protection (HDCP) system supported by HDMI and certain DVI connections. The studios fear that permitting their “high-value” content to travel over unprotected outputs would allow users to record the movies and then redistribute them over the Internet.
Public Knowledge and other opponents of the waiver argue that allowing the studios to turn off analog outputs would “break” as many as 25 million devices by preventing them from receiving or displaying the content and and is therefore anti-consumer. (There are also technical arguments over whether the MPAA has met its legal burden of proof to qualify for a waiver and other super-wonky issues that even The Media Wonk won’t delve into here.)
Here’s the problem: Because the debate is occuring in a public-policy context the MPAA is playing what it considers to be its best public-policy card: fear of piracy. We would only be too eager to offer this shiny new benefit to consumers, the studios say, if we could just do something about the terrible scourge of piracy. But there’s a far more compelling business case for granting the SOC waiver that the studios are not making.
For its part, Public Knowledge is offering counter-arguments that, while they may address the public-policy questions at issue, are utterly naive as to the business considerations distributors face when releasing a movie.
The studios know perfectly well that turning off the analog outputs for the proposed VOD transmissions will have little effect on the broader piracy problem (or, I should say, some people at the studios know that, some of them really are crazy). The reason they need to do it is to give themselves cover with Wal-Mart and other large DVD retailers who would raise holy hell over a new “unprotected” window ahead of theirs. Of course, they, too, know the piracy argument is a feint. But they would nonetheless use it to squeeze the studios on shelf space and price at a time when the studios can ill-afford to lose more DVD business.
Theater owners would also squawk, of course. But the studios have no doubt calculated that there is nothing the theaters can really do about it. They need Hollywood’s movies far more than Wal-Mart does.
Cable operators, who would benefit from the new window, have predictably come out in favor of granting the waiver. But they, too, would be all too happy to turn around and use “piracy” during the new window to squeeze the studios on licensing fees in the traditional VOD window. It’s business, after all. not a morality play.
And that, ultimately, is the flaw in Public Knowledge’s case against the waiver. To argue, as it has repeatedly, that the fact that a few independent distributors like Magnolia and IFC have released movies on VOD ahead of their theatrical or DVD release proves that piracy is not a real problem, and that the studios could release movies the same way now, is simply a non sequitur. Independent distributors are in a different business from the major studios. They do not have business relationships with Wal-Mart and Best Buy to protect.
As things now stand, routinely releasing movies on VOD ahead of their DVD/Blu-ray release would not be a sound business decision for a studio to make, given all of the considerations that must go into the distribution of movies, and no business person answerable to shareholders is likely to make it. Would the use of SOC change that? It might, but not because it would do anything to prevent piracy. It might because it would give the studios a tool to manage their business relationships through a period of technological and industry transition.
That may not sound very noble (or compelling to regulators), but I don’t find it particularly nefarious, either. Making and distributing movies is a business, and expecting that it would operate on something other than business principles is absurd.
For similar reasons, I don’t find the “breaking 25 million TVs” argument very compelling, either.
Public Knowledge and the Consumer Electronics Association complain that “allowing the MPAA to shut off analog outputs will leave over 20 million TV sets and downstream devices like Slingbox unable to receive the MPAA’s content.” That may be so, but it’s also so that NO TV sets or downstream devices can receive the MPAA’s content in the proposed window as things now stand. And they’re simply not going to start receiving it just because Public Knowledge and CEA think they ought to be able to because it’s not in anyone’s economic interest to let them.
Granted, it may be that the likely consumer benefit of the new window is not a sufficient trade off for changing the rules that have governed TV receivers up to now. But “no one should have it if some people can’t” is not an argument to that point one way or another. In fact, it’s not really an argument at all. It’s an attitude.
And it’s not a sound basis for either business or public policy decisions.