Hollywood Wants Control of Your HDTV

By Kevin Spidel, Patriot Strategies.

The race to get quality content directly to your HDTV has been building for a few years. TiVo now includes podcast aggregation ability, AppleTV includes the ability to watch movies, independent films are distributed via iTunes directly to your TV, and Boxee now aggregates and scrapes the social web for online video that your social network is watching and allows you to broadcast directly to your home theater.

Consumer electronic devices have gone from component HDTV connections to HDMI and optical inputs for quality HDTV viewing.

Hollywood would like to break your TV and revert your viewing experience back a few years. Never mind the evolution of media distribution created by an open market. The large corporate trade associates want to control distribution abilities directly by breaking your TV.

The MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) has been trying to increase movie distribution while maintaining full control of their content. Throughout the years they have joined forces with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) to take on media related websites, bit torrent technology, and various file sharing programs in an effort to crack down on illegal piracy.

Enter Selectable Output Control (aka The Cable Kill Swith).

“Selectable Output Control” (”SOC”) is the remote signaling of home devices by content providers or distributors, to turn off consumer home interfaces on a program-by-program basis. The interface in question would simply not operate for the particular program. It would mean that a consumer who has purchased an HDTV display, and pays for a set-top box or other device with an HDTV output, still might not receive all of the HDTV programs he or she has paid for — because the interface between the set-top box and the HDTV display has been turned off by remote control. In the long term, imposition of SOC could have the effect of driving from the market any home interface that supports home recording. HRRC has opposed imposition of SOC by law or in any context subject to regulation.

SOC is activated by data “triggers” that ride along with program information when it is sent to the home. FCC Encoding Rules currently ban SOC use, but the FCC has left the door open to its use in the future.  – Home Recording Rights Coalition

Here is a video about this technology: (more…)

Music, Technology, Policy and Law Go Back to the Future!

Future of Music Policy Summit 2009
The Grandaddy of Music-Tech-Policy Conferences is Back and Better Than Ever!

It’s been nearly a decade since the digital music genie burst out of its bottle, changing the game for virtually everyone in the music ecosystem. So what comes next? Future of Music Policy Summit 2009 will examine this question through practical, musician-focused workshops, keynotes from leading artists, managers and policymakers and inspired panel discussions with the sharpest minds in the music/technology space. New this year, the event will feature unique presentations from a range of visionaries about where we’ve been and where we go from here. All this plus cocktail parties, a movie screening and a rock show! (more…)

Crowdsourcing Public Policy

Listening to StationXtv this morning they mentioned www.MyIdea4CA.com. It is an attempt to harness Twitter and hashtags to Crowdsource Public Policy.

It’s been three years since Jeff Howe coined the term “crowdsourcing” in his Wired article “The Rise of Crowdsourcing.” The term, which describes an online, distributed problem solving and production model, is most famously represented in the business operations of companies like Threadless and InnoCentive and in contests like the Goldcorp Challenge and the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl Contest.
(via CFCM.)

Governor Schwarzenegger launched the www.MyIdea4CA.com website for Twitter users to share and discuss their ideas to move California forward. The MyIdea4CA Twitter Forum was initiated to extend a popular conversation that began in June of 2009 on Twitter when Governor Schwarzenegger called for public participation for new ideas on the state budget.

As government cuts back their budgets, consultants, polling data, and combined with the need for transparency we will begin to see more crowdsourcing projects more and more. It not only creates a way to get real time results of public opinion, but also provides engagement strategies to connect with the public. The real question is the quality of this feedback?

This is not scientific nor a professional response, however it is true public response and engagement. The Public and the European Union has begun working with the public to perfect this approach.

Echoing the Open Government initiatives currently underway at the White House, the process is beginning with an open brainstorming session to identify and evaluate a range of ways in which EU governments can harness the emerging power of the web to transform European public services.

Debate graph on these ideas here: http://debategraph.org/flash/fv.aspx?r=20101

The potential is huge. The trend of such approaches have already caught on. With such traction, do you feel that decisions will now be interpreted as the popular sentiment? Does access and knowledge of social media provide greater access to policy makers?

Right Click, Copy and Paste

Images often times express more than words.  I, for one, very much enjoy including images with my blog posts to compliment the topic of the post.  I certainly do not take my digital camera out and take my own pictures but do a Google image search to find that perfect picture that embodies my post, I right click on the image and place it in my post.   I admittedly have a nonchalant attitude towards intellectual property on the Internet.  Perhaps that is because I came of age during the Napster revolution or I am accustomed to copying images and text from other websites and including it in my work.  Digital technology has revolutionized how society views IP rights online.

The California Assembly is taking steps to protect photographers and public figures whose images are used without consent online.  AB 632, introduced by Assembly Member Davis, would require a social networking site to prevent an image of a person that is posted on the site from being copied or reproduced by another person without the permission of the user who posted the image.  In a further measure to protect unauthorized reproduction of a person’s image; social networking websites would be required to create a mechanism for users to flag images for removal of images of that user that are posted without their authorization. (more…)

FCC Investigates iPhone Applications

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a powerful body that regulates radio, television, wire, satellite, cable and internet communications.  The FCC rules on all types of communications issues including preventing media conglomerates from exclusive control over particular communications methods.

The FCC’s latest investigation involves Apple and AT&T.  FCC jurisdiction is based upon iPhones running on public networks and its duty to ensure fair competition on wireless networks.  Apple recently rejected the Google Voice application for the new iPhone; AT&T claims that it is not responsible for accepting or denying iPhone applications. On face it seems inappropriate for the FCC to force Apple to allow all applications to be used on Apple’s product.  So what if Apple refuses the Google Voice app to be used on its iPhone; customers who want to use the Google app should buy a Blackberry or other mutlimedia device that allows the application.

So what is the FCC’s beef…why not let the free market dictate how apps are used? (more…)

Regulating New Media Under Campaign Finance Laws

Its still 15 months away from mid term elections; yet, political hopefuls are chomping at the bit to announce their candidacies and begin preemptive attacks against their opponents.  During the last campaign cycle, we all witnessed the power of social web communication to garner grass root followings.  If 2008 was the birth of social media’s presence in campaign life then 2010 will be its toddler stage.  Subsequently, use of the social web and internet advertisements will be at the forefront of campaign finance discussions for 2010 campaigns.

What can and cannot be done on political campaigns is almost always dictated by campaign finance laws.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) sets campaign finance laws for all federal elections; whereas, state legislatures make their own statutes for state and local campaigns.  One of the main objectives to campaign finance laws is to regulate campaign contribution amounts and campaign advertising.  Due to new internet technologies, these laws must be expanded on or interpreted to take into account changes in online communications and advertising.

We are all familiar with the requirements that most campaign ads must state who authorized and funded the ad.  This is to protect not just the candidate but disclose to the public who paid for the ad.  Usually the campaign pays for ads (of course those who contribute to the campaign are not disclosed) but occasionally an outside organization will pay for ads that attack a candidate’s opponent…can we all say “Swift Boat.”  These rules seem simple enough (opposed to the rest of campaign finance rules) and are easy to follow in television, print, website, and radio ads.

Do these rules apply to social media?  How about internet ads?  What if a candidate decides to create a Facebook game and post on their Facebook fan page…would the game fall under campaign finance rules as a campaign advertisement?

The social web, for the most part is free.  Setting up Twitter and Facebook accounts are simple and cost the user nothing except time.  Twitter has come up with a process to verify celebrity accounts, which should be used for politicians.  A social web faux pas can easily occur when another person posts comments and content in lieu of the actual user.  Social networking  is another form of communication, which is extremely affordable and is becoming an integral part of  political campaigns.

For the most part, activites on the social web do not offend federal or state campaign finance laws as no funds are being expended on purchase of social networking sites.  However, as mentioned above, some activities require design work like websites, blogsites, Facebook applications, and mobile applications.  Do these fall under campaign finance laws?  I argue yes, because they are being created for the sole purpose of promoting the candidate during a political campaign.

As to internt advertising, pay per click campaigns offer a cheap and easy way to drive internet traffic to a candidate’s websites.  Campaigns only pay for advertising after so many people have clicked on the ad, which is different than paying for an ad and then broadcasting it.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this issue in the context of a Florida mayorial election.

The Florida Elections Commission decided that a mayoral candidate’s ads on Google and Facebook  violated the state’s election law because they did not include a disclaimer that indicates who bought them. Many other states, including Texas, Alaska, Connecticut and Ohio, also require similar disclaimers.  The candidate’s campaign argued that the messages in question were not technically ads, but rather links to ads, and that it doesn’t pay for them unless a Web user clicks on them and is taken to a Web site that provides the appropriate disclosures.

My question to the campaign is simply, why not include disclaimer information on the Google ads?  Disclaimer information is not only beneficial to voters but to the campaign.  If I were the candidate’s opponent I could buy up my own Google ads, use the candidate’s face and campaign message in the ad and then once a person clicked on the ad direct them to another website…anything from a porn site to another candidate’s site.  As a voter I wouldn’t know what just happened and would most likely be frustrated with the candidate’s whose face is on the ad…not knowing that someone else might have posted the ad.  Further, even though the ad had technically not been purchased until someone clicked on it, the campaign (or other entity) had to pay to create the ad’s content, this should be disclosed to voters.

The Florida case comes as digital media faces broader challenges in accommodating the same sort of disclosures required in traditional advertising. This spring, the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to major drug companies, telling them their search ads needed to include risk information about their drugs in the text of the ad. Separately, the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing whether bloggers and other Web publishers that receive products from marketers and write about it are doing enough to make those relationships known, under truth-in-advertising guidelines.

Regulators are catching up to the digital world but does it make sense to apply traditional rules to new internet technologies?  Should we be able to “click at our own risk” or take information in blogs with a grain of salt?  How much government hand holding should be happening online?  Disclosure is a powerful regulatory tool; consumers deserve to know all the facts but are we also required to implement common sense when using the internet?

Congress has a love/hate relationship with new media

A recent article from the LA Times discusses the love affair Congress Members have with Twitter. American’s politicians are using Twitter to communicate with staff, constituents and effectively campaign for themselves.  For once Congress seems to be ahead of the curve, in a recent survey of advertisers:

Almost half of the 1,015 advertisers polled said that Twitter use will grow exponentially over the next few years, compared with just 12% of consumers who felt the same. One-fifth of…….advertisers and 12% of consumers say Twitter is just something for young people, which contradicts a much-publicized report by a Morgan Stanley intern arguing the opposite. If McCain and his 150 fellow Congressional Twitterers, according to Tweet Congress, are any indication of the website’s audience, it’s not a young person’s game. -via Is Congress the ultimate ad agency with Twitter? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times.

Recently we had a conversation with Nancy Tarr, whom we hope will play a major role within#NMP, about this phenomenon. The very people who will have to decide on important legislation in the coming future regarding this space are still trying to understand how to use social media. The simple fact is, Congress (members and staff) are in this torrid love hate relationship with the reality that Twitter, YouTube, live streaming from your mobile device, is making the world and policy making more accessible and transparent.

The major question is: Do we want Congress to be an ad agency for new media? (more…)

Does Twitter Have a Place in Government?

Not surprisingly, heralding a transparent government is much easier to do when in opposition than in leadership.  Case in point is last week’s admission by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that the White House has blocked online access to Twitter.  Although, the White House does have several  official Twitter accounts, actual White House employees are not Twittering about their daily adventures.

Government transparency in the form of social media is a hotly contested issue.  Some say that blocking employee access to social media sites is great news as taxpayer money is not being wasted on using Twitter on White House time.  Of course this logic is slightly flawed for those of us living in the digital age can access Twitter via our mobile phones.  However, the message being sent by invoking this policy is strong; social media is vital on the campaign trail but dangerous when governing.

Can social networks be harmful to government?  Worse yet do they pose a security risk?

Before delving into those questions, lets take a look at identity manipulations issues on Twitter.  Now when I joined Twitter I used my favorite screen name and linked it to my email and full name.  I am who I  say I am.  This is not always the case on Twitter, especially where celebrities are involved.  Twitter profile fakes for celebrities such as Emma Watson, the Dhali Lama, and Tony LaRussa have gained huge followings.   In an effort to delegitimize these impostors Twitter has created verified account status, which can only be obtained by the celebrity or their agent. (more…)

What is NewMediaPolicy.org #nmp

“Changing the Law to Save Newspapers” – at What Cost to New Media?

Yesterday Jennifer wrote about Intellectual Property laws, specifically US patent laws, as they relate to emerging and traditional media in the world of news. It spurred  discussion in the comments section below, Facebook, and Twitter.

Today, Jeffrey Neuburger posted a great article titled, “Changing the Law to Save Newspapers: Some Modest Proposals,” on the PBS MediaShift blog.  The article is from traditional media’s point of view, not surprisingly, some of these proposals infringe on emerging news distribution technologies such as SEO regulations for online news.

After reading this article I was struck by the question, “what is newsworthy content?”

We encourage you to read the below article and post your thoughts.

(more…)