It has always been about gaining control over technology and never about copyright law.
major television receiver producers have last said what they very want from the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) in commute for breaking up the cable companies ‘ monopoly over set-top boxes. As they continue to push fake copyright arguments that experts in copyright law have roundly refuted, they have now made clear the price they want consumers and mugwump content creators to pay.
That monetary value is detailed in this letter ( PDF ) from Disney, CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, and Scripps Networks. In curtly, the adult television receiver companies do not want consumers to have the ability to search the Internet for videos and they do not want device makers to have the exemption to create devices with all of the features consumers want. Since they have never actually had the power under copyright law to make this happen, they are turning to the FCC to give them that power through regulations. major television producers are trying to use the FCC to protect their existing businesses from the disruptive effects of initiation, anticipate market forces through regulation, and deny little independent artists the opportunity to compete against cable content. EFF has joined with mugwump on-line television creators ( PDF ) to push binding .
independent artists in the Internet era trust heavily on the ability to be discovered. As a solution, they exist on open platforms and are dependant on consumers ‘ ability to search for content that meets their needs. The more niche and unique the content, the more it depends on Internet search for finding an audience. If the FCC enacts the television receiver producers ‘ marriage proposal to restrict search to “ accredited content, ” autonomous creators will effectively disappear from television receiver screens. A rule like that would mean that alone cable and established paid subscription services are allowed in search results, not platforms like YouTube, Vimeo, and smaller sites that are open to new video creators. To make things even worse, the major television producers are demanding that the FCC give them the office to dictate how exploiter interfaces on home video devices will look and function. mugwump creators benefit from new drug user interfaces that give users ability to comment and share video, and give independent artists the ability to interact directly with an hearing to build a winnow floor. Without the freedom to design an interface at the device godhead end, it is clear that nowadays ‘s big players will restrain anything that threatens their authority of television receiver.
It does n’t surprise us that this is what they wanted from the beginning : it repeats the lapp bore practice of crying wolf at the adjacent disruptive engineering and then seeking out ways to destroy it through laws and regulations. We hope that policy makers in Congress and the FCC recognize what is being asked of them. The courts and Congress have ( largely ) refused to grant major television producers the might to control customers ‘ hardware and software. The FCC should not bridge player them that power now.