US Copyright Office Helping Cable Protect Its Cable Box Monopoly The cable industry apparently has a new ally in protecting its monopoly stranglehold over the cable box: the United States Copyright Office. We've talked for a while now how the cable and entertainment industries have been pulling out all the lobbying stops to prevent the FCC from bringing competition to the cable box. For months now the industry has funded a massive swath of misleading editorials in papers and websites nationwide, claiming that bringing competition to the cable box is somehow racist or that it will result in a piracy apocalypse.

simply isn't true. While copyright does provide some protection as to the copying and redistribution of work, it can't be magically redefined to negotiate away the rights of the public. Copyright simply doesn't work that way. But the cable industry has also been trying to claim that opening the cable box to real competition would somehow violate copyright, when that. While copyright does provide some protection as to the copying and redistribution of work, it can't be magically redefined to negotiate away the rights of the public. Copyright simply doesn't work that way. Yet amazingly, to help parrot this claim, even the US Copyright Office this week sent a letter (pdf) to members of Congress, claiming they were concerned that the FCC's plan would let all manner of companies hijack the cable industry's programming, slather it with their own ads, and then make a killing: quote: "The Office's principal reservation is that, as currently proposed, the rule could interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law, and restrict their ability to impose reasonable conditions on the use of these works through the private negotiations that are the hallmark of the vibrant and dynamic MPVD marketplace." The problem is that's nonsense. Under the The problem is that's nonsense. Under the FCC's unfinished plan (pdf), cable providers would be required to provide third party hardware vendors access to their programming without the need for a CableCARD. Under the proposal, cable providers would be able to use any DRM of their choice, and all existing ad and business arrangements would remain intact -- including you still paying your cable provider a huge sum each month for programming. The FCC's goal is more competition, and therefore cheaper, more open cable boxes. But because this would not only kill $21 billion in annual set top box rental fees, and result in cable boxes more likely to direct customers to third-party streaming options, cable has been throwing millions of dollars at lobbying against the FCC's plan. This now apparently extends to convincing the Copyright Office to ignore all reason (and the law), in falsely claiming this is about copyright -- when it's actually about control. The quote: The Copyright Office’s letter implies that cable and content companies could create new rights for themselves just by writing them into private contracts between each other: the right to control which “platforms and devices” customers can use, the right to limit time-shifting and other fair uses, and the right to “exclude” other software from a customer’s device. While private companies are free to negotiate conditions like these between each other, nothing in the law gives copyright holders the power to impose those conditions on the whole world, snuffing out the rights of users. Being, oh, the US Copyright Office, you'd think they'd know that. Consumer groups like Public Knowledge quote: "Under the Copyright Office's analysis, the interests of consumers are irrelevant, and fair use is an obstacle to be overcome. This letter is another example of how the Copyright Office has become dedicated to the interests of some copyright holders -- as opposed to providing an accurate interpretation of copyright law." But the damage may already be done. The Copyright Office has been making the DC rounds for months "educating" regulators and lawmakers on the FCC's plan, falsely claiming that the plan would violate copyright. As a result several of the FCC Commissioners that originally voted yes on the plan have started The EFF has a good primer on why the Copyright Office is so out of bounds here, noting that you can't simply manipulate the definition of "copyright" to fit your narratives, especially your plans trample consumer rights:Being, oh,, you'd think they'd know that. Consumer groups like Public Knowledge similarly blasted the Copyright Office's defense of the cable set top monopoly But the damage may already be done. The Copyright Office has been making the DC rounds for months "educating" regulators and lawmakers on the FCC's plan, falsely claiming that the plan would violate copyright. As a result several of the FCC Commissioners that originally voted yes on the plan have started waffling , and it's significantly more likely that any "compromise" proposal that now emerges from the FCC will be so watered down as to be potentially useless. Thanks, US Copyright Office!







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 52 comments



TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA 17 recommendations TIGERON Member the irony And those same people wonder why there's anger at the government and at those at the top who have everything while the rest of us have gotten royally screwed.

jchambers28

Premium Member

join:2007-05-12

Alma, AR 7 recommendations jchambers28 Premium Member screw pay TV gald I chopped the cord a long time ago. mpellegrini

join:2009-02-22

Tacoma, WA 6 recommendations mpellegrini Member For what it's worth... I sent them a nasty letter suggesting Maria Pallante had obviously been bought and paid for by the cable industry. Not that they give a shit about what the serfs think.

Anon0e78e

@teksavvy.com 4 recommendations Anon0e78e Anon I think it's time for the Free Market to start acting like it Instead of the High Seas Piracy that is apparently the norm today. Customers are not booty to be gathered and split amongst the crew. They are people, they have rights whether you like it or not, and eventually someone is going to put a hole in your side and sink your galleon. Bob61571

join:2008-08-08

Washington, IL 4 recommendations Bob61571 Member Wonder how many Lawyers had to review that 18 page US Copyright Office letter? And, I wonder how much all those lawyers had to charge the US Copyright Office? Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ 2 recommendations Kearnstd Premium Member What does this even mean? quote: "The Office's principal reservation is that, as currently proposed, the rule could interfere with copyright owners' rights to license their works as provided by copyright law, and restrict their ability to impose reasonable conditions on the use of these works through the private negotiations that are the hallmark of the vibrant and dynamic MPVD marketplace." I want to load this into a truck and sell it to a farmer to spread on their field because it smells like a load of bullshit.



How would openSTB prevent licensing of works? How would I gain channels with an open STB if they make it work like DOCSIS where the user is not able to alter their internet speeds(without some black hatting).



Only logical but still BS item I could see is a fear from Copyright holders of companies making boxes that allow sending video out to computers on your LAN, Right now sending to another non TV screen requires extra license because of how media works in its odd backwards ways. OpenSTBs would likely have apps that let you stream and control it over LAN. Because consumer tech companies are all about the user, Big Media is all about the lockdown. I want to load this into a truck and sell it to a farmer to spread on their field because it smells like a load of bullshit.How would openSTB prevent licensing of works? How would I gain channels with an open STB if they make it work like DOCSIS where the user is not able to alter their internet speeds(without some black hatting).Only logical but still BS item I could see is a fear from Copyright holders of companies making boxes that allow sending video out to computers on your LAN, Right now sending to another non TV screen requires extra license because of how media works in its odd backwards ways. OpenSTBs would likely have apps that let you stream and control it over LAN. Because consumer tech companies are all about the user, Big Media is all about the lockdown.

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

2 recommendations KrK Premium Member in Murica the Corporations have the power.... ... to do anything they want. If they don't have the power, they pay the Government to give it to them.



Then you end up with Corporate profit agenda backed up by Governmental authority. The worst of both worlds. Corporatism. (Otherwise known as fascism...)