[link|http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000771.html|Here], (via a post on [link|http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/02/a_biased_headli.html|Dan Gillmor's blog]):

The [[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/technology/21flag.html?ex=1266642000&en=e286e1f936539c08&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland|NYTimes]] article starts by describing Mike Godwin downloading an episode of the Showtime series "Huff." After some scene-setting, we read this:

The M.P.A.A. has argued that without the broadcast flag rule, content creators would have no incentive to provide digital content over the airwaves, because people could simply pluck video streams out of the air and redistribute them to millions of viewers over the Internet.

"It's very simple," said Fritz Attaway, a vice president and Washington general counsel for the M.P.A.A. "Without the broadcast flag, high-value content would migrate to where it could be protected."

In practical terms, such "protected" places would be cable and satellite systems where digital content can be more easily scrambled, encrypted or otherwise controlled, leaving broadcast networks at a distinct disadvantage in the new digital marketplace.


The fallacy here should be pretty obvious. "Huff" is already distributed only in a "protected" place -- a premium cable channel -- and it's available for infringing downloaders. (Other cable and satellite offerings are similarly available on P2P.) This is not evidence that cable-like protection is needed for broadcast. To the contrary, it's evidence that the "protection" of cable-like DRM is illusory.

Similarly, the article repeats without comment the MPAA argument that they will be forced to withhold high-resolution broadcast service unless the Broadcast Flag is imposed. This argument couldn't be more wrong in its view of broadcasters' incentives.

In fact, P2P infringement gives broadcasters a powerful incentive to offer higher-quality, higher-resolution content. High-res content makes legitimate broadcast service more attractive to viewers. P2P versions can't match these increases in resolution because doing so would make P2P files much bigger, clogging P2P systems with enormous files and making downloads much slower. If broadcasters have to "compete against free" their best hope is to actually compete, by improving their product -- especially when the competitor can't match the improvement.


He's got a very good point. Newer technologies (e.g., optical fiber to every home) will mitigate some of the pain of trying to download everything (like the old geezer who went to a roadside motel with every movie and every TV show ever produced in the old Qwest commercials), but some pain will always exist. If the producers of shows were interested in competing on quality and convenience they would be in a very strong position for a long time even without the broadcast flag.

Cheers,
Scott.