![Mapping the Digital Video Copyright Landscape](/images/matrix-150x75.gif")
Return to the Report.| Content [1] | IT | CE | Consumer/User Advocates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadcast FlagMarking DTV programs to trigger mandated copy protection in DTV devices (e.g., TVs, set-top boxes, computers) | Essential to protect DTV programming broadcast in the clear. Reasonably effective at stopping unauthorized copying and piracy, and makes minimal intrusion on technology. | Concerned that the flag creates gatekeepers over innovation. FCC involvement sets a dangerous precedent for regulating computing; not effective because easily circumvented. Functional criteria essential to minimize impact on innovation. | Largely neutral on the flag, with some opposition. By protecting content, the flag will speed availability of new DTV content. Concerned that implementation must allow reasonable consumer uses and equipment maker innovations. [2] | Concern about impact on reasonable uses and "fair use" of programs. Studio control over technologies could limit new online uses and may affect access to public interest programming. Consumers benefit if protections lead to more DTV content, but question their necessity and effectiveness. |
Broadcast EncryptionScrambling the DTV broadcast signal, making reception by unauthorized devices impossible. | Politically impractical and expensive. Effective (circumvention is difficult), but need for R&D could delay protection, create substantial costs. May create gaps in protection. Contradicts U.S.'s history of "free over-the-air television." | Most effective for DTV protection, but political barriers remain. Substantial equipment expense. Costs are appropriately distributed, since the industries that benefit from protection assume the cost of creating/maintaining it. Avoids regulation of computers or other devices. Political barriers are significant, but mostly inertial. | Would orphan thousands of DTVs already in homes and confuse buyers. More effective and hard to circumvent, but may be expensive to implement. Politically very difficult. | Avoids direct regulation, but concerns about reasonable uses. Control over decryption keys could give content companies authority over device design and consumers' uses of content. More effective, however, and avoids direct regulation of computers. |
"Analog Hole" WatermarkingMaintaining copy protections when digital content moves to analog form and back. | Essential to close gaps in digital protection. Digital protections such as the flag or encryption do not affect analog, allowing pirates to avoid protections by redigitizing content. Watermarking is essential to close this hole. Technology is young, but advancing. Likely will require a federal mandate to be effective. | Serious concerns re: effectiveness, cost, and scope of regulation. Watermarking will not be effective due to the ease of removing/distorting watermarks. Concerns about the costs associated with building watermark detection into a large number of consumer devices. | Concerns about effectiveness and cost. Some disagreement about watermarking's effectiveness - some watermarks can be easily circumvented and detection is difficult. Implementation may be expensive. Concern that watermarking could be used to inappropriately restrict consumer uses. | Likely to diminish consumers' reasonable/fair uses and inhibit new uses. Likely to increase costs, decrease innovation in consumer devices. Unclear that watermarking will effectively frustrate dedicated pirates. Affects millions of devices used daily by consumers. |
Technical "Self-Help" on Peer-to-Peer NetworksTechnically disrupting file-sharing networks. | "Passive" self-help is an important tool; "active" steps still unsure. Rampant copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks is a major problem. "Passive" self-help (like fake files) is an important tool and has already been used with some success; need for more active technological steps (requiring legislative changes) is not yet clear. | "Passive" self-help appropriate, but concerns about more active steps. Concern that actions disabling/obstructing consumers' use of their devices would produce significant consumer anger. Also concerned about security and potential network degradation. | "Passive" self-help appropriate, but concerns about more active steps. Concern that actions disabling/obstructing consumers' use of their devices would produce significant consumer anger. | Accept "passive" self-help, but strongly opposed to more active measures. Consumers are highly wary of actions that could damage property or interfere with reasonable uses of content. |
EnforcementCivil and criminal actions against copyright infringers, DMCA violators. | Essential to fighting piracy, but not enough. Actions have already begun and more are expected. Have been skeptical that enforcement will have a major impact on the problem, but waiting to see final outcome. | Vigorous enforcement of existing law could greatly reduce infringement. Outcome of current actions remains to be seen, but could substantially address the issue. Some concern that IT companies will be called on to monitor customers or actively enforce against them. Want to see enforcement accompanied by legal alternatives | Vigorous enforcement of existing law could greatly reduce infringement. Outcome of current actions remains to be seen, but could substantially address the issue. | Vigorous enforcement useful, but process concerns remain. Enforcement must be consistent with due process and privacy interests, and must involve reasonable penalties. Must also be accompanied by legal alternatives. |
New Distribution ModelsEmbracing new business approaches to offering content digitally. | Essential, but need time to develop; not a complete solution. Digital content distribution, protected by DRM, essential for the future. Many experiments underway; none clearly superior. Need time to develop these offerings; cannot do so with rampant infringement undercutting viability. Alternatives will not eliminate the piracy problem. | Should diminish infringement significantly, should be pursued aggressively. Believe new distribution methods will fulfill a currently-unmet consumer demand for content, creating profitable new markets. Note that offering alternatives will not eliminate the piracy problem. | Should diminish infringement significantly, should be pursued aggressively. Believe new distribution methods will fulfill a currently-unmet consumer demand for content, creating profitable new markets. | Availability of "honest alternatives" will reduce consumers' desire to infringe copyrights. Some concern that proposed models could limit reasonable uses, consumer choices, and information "commons." |
[1] The content community is not homogenous, and this column reflects views largely held by the movie studios, the recording industry, and affiliated interests. The positions of some traditional "content" companies like software publishers and video game makers are best reflected in the "IT" column, while other content companies like book publishers have unique positions that may not be fully reflected here.
[2] Note that some consumer electronics companies have been part of the 5C technology group largely supportive of the broadcast flag, while others have been actively opposed.