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:

For years the FCC has limited the SOC option from content creators or distribution providers (cable companies.) However on November 23rd the MPAA sent a letter to the FCC defending their original request to wave the FCC’s previous deicsion to block access to the SOC technology.

Public Knowledge, Home Recording Rights Coalition, the Consumer Electronics Association, and various other organizations took a strong public stance against the original request (the letter available here:: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/soc-genachowski-letter-20091104.pdf.) In additional they responded to the newest letter in several strong blog posts stating:

“it utterly fails to demonstrate that anybody steals content through the analog hole or that giving the MPAA the ability to shut off both analog and protected digital outputs would have any impact at all on piracy.” (original link: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2783)

Further:

“We use the word, ‘breaking,’ deliberately, here and in previous filings and videos, because that is exactly what would happen if the industry has its way and the FCC grants the ill-conceived waiver to allow the industry control over consumer devices. Because of existing FCC rules, a consumer with a stand alone digital video recorder (DVR) or Slingbox knows that it will work for all video-on-demand (VoD) services, and that compatibility is a key factor when consumers spend their hard-earned money on consumer electronics. It would be a rude shock if, at the industry whim, some of those devices did not perform as expected. (original link here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2782)

As the debate continues between Hollywood studios, consumer electronics manufactures, and home recording rights advocates, there are many more that have yet to weight in on this debate or be mobalized that will be severly impacted.

Given the current economy, job creation is critical. Direct-to-home movie releases will eliminate thousands of movie theatre jobs and hurt movie theatre owners. The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) has yet to publish a statement on this issue and the impact it will have on the job market.

How will this impact independent distributors and 3rd party content distributors such as Apple iTunes, Boxee, TiVo, etc?

Will blocking their signals be next?

Greg Tarr from TWICE says it best:

“There is also no readily available consumer friendly way to make copies of HDTV programming over the so-called unprotected analog component-video outputs. So why do producers require the ability to shut down such ports? Why must thousands of consumers who have purchased expensive HDTVs five or more years ago lose the ability to watch some programs in HDTV now that it is finally available? Just to prevent a handful of pirates from possibly using expensive professional recording equipment with complex analog-to-digital encoders from illegally reproducing the content for sale?

The solution to that problem lies with law enforcement, not by discriminating against the people who helped to make the digital TV transition happen.”

In the coming weeks we will put this issue on the forefront. New Media content producers, movie theatre owners, workers, and consumers have yet to weigh in.

This issue will not just be an FCC issue. We expect Net Neutrality related issues to surface in Congress around this matter. We will be talking to these groups in the coming weeks and begin to organize a consumer led public awareness campaign.

For now, your thoughts on this issue is important.

What are your concerns?

Will this affect you? If so, in what way?

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?

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?

You can see why politicians would love social media as it provides an affordable way to directly communicate with constituents (and voters) as well as hate lack of message control. The concern we have here at #NMP is that policy makers who will be crafting policy and legislation that effect new media usage barely understand how to use this technology and will be influenced by their own skewed experiences and investors in the technology; not those who are avid consumers, producers, and disseminators of new media content.

We can not let the weary concerned politicians, the ambivalent Congressional staffers, or the venture capital firms who want to protect their investments have a solitary voice over the rights of the social media community.

We must continue to drive this conversation from the consumers’ point of view.  Lend your voice and opinions to this blog…what are your concerns?  How do you view regulations that will affect how we use new media?