This is exactly the problem! You’re lumping th cost of making the content with the cost of distributing it. That’s unethical, and wrong. And it’s the reason why nobody outside of the industry wants the industry to be able to control SOC.

The cost of making the content is one thing. The cost of distributing it is another. Distribution is and should cost essentially nothing. Anyone can do it cheaply.

You are advocating the the cost of making it should not be seperate from distribution. In essence you are advocating that price fixing is OK. That’s wrong!

If you’re in the entertainment industry, go ahead and create content, or not. If you get someone to pay you for it, great. If not, don’t do it unless you want to. You can sign your content to prove you are the original producer. If your content has protections in it great… (See if I buy it!) Once you build the content you’re done! Get your money before handing over the content, then hand it over and go home.

But, don’t limit the copying. That’s distribution, and if I can do it cheaper than you, then I should be able to do it. I’m not claiming to have created it. I’m just distributing it.

As long as the entertainment business is in the business of extortion, they can’t be trusted with any control of my devices. If they aren’t in the business of extortion they don’t need control of my devices.

I do have an axe to grind as I feel that much of (if not all of) the legislation that the entertainment industries are trying/have tried to push through the government is anti-consumer (I never said anti-competitive).

However, in this case I’m not arguing the idea of having pre-release movies on TV as a bad thing or anti-consumer. What I’m arguing and what I’m VERY skeptical of is the use of the SOC flag in order to manage the recording of these shows. That flag worries me because while the use in this instance may just be to protect the content industry, I don’t trust them to not abuse it in the future.

Once the foot is in the door, it’s hard to get it back out. It may not even be the movie industry. Once SOC is being used in some form, it’s only that much easier to justify another use for it.

One question I have is why can’t these movies be released on current systems, such as On-Demand or Pay-Per-View? It seems like those systems are already in place to handle any issues that would require the use of the SOC flag. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that you couldn’t record Pay-Per-View shows (I’m not sure about on-demand).

SteveAK’s specific comment was “you guys seem to think you have a legal right to my money – fewer features at a higher price on fewer devices.” Since this is the cable industry’s blog, and the cable industry doesn’t sell DVDs or any other permanent ownership of content, I think Paul (rightly) assumed his complaint was with cable’s prices/features.

As a result, Paul asked exactly the right question. If the cost of that content is too high, is that an argument that piracy is somehow legitimate?

As to your point, you’re right. Whether the DMCA goes too far or not isn’t the issue here. What is at issue is the very specific question of whether content owners can be assured of some level of protection that would make them comfortable distributing that content via a new avenue.

As we mentioned, this question was solved for iTunes rentals to the satisfaction of both consumers and content owners. Some people with earlier version iPods were unhappy with being unable to take advantage of the new service with older equipment. However, the success of iTunes rentals clearly demonstrates the potential of these new delivery models.

SteveAK’s original post mentions having higher quality movies (Bond in particular) on a single Blu-ray and also having low-cost ripped copies, so they can use it in a way that works best for them (say transferring to a mobile device). Paul then responded to SteveAK, with the comment about piracy as an alternative for content that is priced too high. So purchased content was talked about and that’s what I was referring to.

To answer your question: no, I don’t consider ordering a movie from Netflix a “purchase” and I would not make copies of disks rented from them, as that would truly be stealing. I’m talking about making copies of a Blu-ray you purchased, for use either as a backup or to make copies to play on mobile players. The DMCA says that is illegal and that’s ridiculous. I should be able to play that content on the device of my choosing, for personal use, without being charged extra for it (or having it considered illegal). In any case, that isn’t the topic of discussion here so I’m sorry.

Reducing or eliminating the time it takes for a movie to make it from the movie theater to your TV set is anti-consumer? It’s already being done for some indie films, only because there’s not much market for pirated indie movies, and the consumer is worse off for that? Of course not. The only people who should be crying here are the movie theater owners. Obviously you have your own axe to grind and will use all the tortured logic necessary to make it sound anti-competitive.

So Paul’s statement is exactly right. That is exactly what fed Napster. People didn’t like paying for an entire CD when all they wanted was one or two songs, so they saw Napster as a viable alternative.

The problem is a certain group of people feel that they are entitled to this content for free regardless of how much it costs to make and distribute it, and without concern for the intellectual property of its creators.

How about these industries treat their consumers fairly, not like a herd of cattle they can milk for all they’re worth. Again, it comes down to respect and trust. If these industries were actually respectable and proved that they could be trusted, things would be different. All they’ve proven is that they’re ignorant and stubborn, and love to stifle innovation in order to keep the cash cow mooing.

(Never thought I’d talk about cows so much in a post such as this)

You can break a TV, but you can’t break compatibility. CDs didn’t break my turntable. Sure, the cable industry doesn’t have a right to your money. If you don’t want the service, feel free to cancel.

But you also seem to be complaining that if the price for content is too high, then piracy is a handy alternative.

So why did I say SOC should never have been created? After all, I understand the position of the movie and TV industries here and would definitely welcome early release of new movies to television. The problem is that I don’t TRUST either of your industries. Whether you feel it’s deserved or not, you’re reputation is terrible (although not as bad as the music industry) and it’s quite evident that you care less about the value you bring to your customers than how much money you can suck out of them. I don’t want/need/deserve you telling me how to watch my TV, but most of all, I don’t TRUST you. Do something to change that image and maybe we can talk…