----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:38 PM Subject: Re: "Don't Touch That Dial--Or You're Under Arrest!"
> Kramer, Staci D. 2002. "Content's King: Jamie Kellner Controls Turner's
Programming
> Riches." Cableworld (29 April).
>
<http://www.inside.com/product/product.asp?entity=CableWorld&pf_ID=7A2ACA7
1-FAAD-41FC-A100-0B8A11C30373>
>
> He says that skipping ads is theft.
> "Jamie Kellner would be the first to tell you he is no VOD visionary.
What he is,
> though, is the chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting, which puts him
in charge of
> what could be one of the most potent collections of VOD [Video on
Demand] content
> anywhere."
> JK: "I'm a big believer we have to make television more convenient or
we will drive
> the penetration of PVRs [Personal Video Recorders?] and things like
that, which I'm
> not sure is good for the cable industry or the broadcast industry or the
networks."
> CW [Cable World]: Why not?
> JK: "Because of the ad skips .... It's theft. Your contract with the
network when
> you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you
couldn't get the
> show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch
the button
> you're actually stealing the programming."
> CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?
> JK: "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the
bathroom. But
> if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second
increments,
> you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for
30 seconds.
> They've done that just to make it easy for someone to skip a
commercial."
> CW: What if I'm using my PVR to ... keep watching the network when I
might otherwise
> miss the shows?"
> JK: "Is it good for me? It's good to make it easier for consumers to
watch the
> programs they want to watch. I'm not opposed to consumers getting a
program without
> commercials in it. But they have to create a new model that charges
them for that
> programming the way HBO charges them."
> JK: "Again, I think that whether it's legislation, whether it's new
technology,
> whether it's challenging Betamax, whatever it is in the video
marketplace, we're
> going to have to find a way to protect copywritten material or there
will be less of
> it made or it will not be made available in windows where it's not
protectable and
> that's not good for consumers, so there's got to be some way it's
protected. The
> audio marketplace -- Napster and other companies had a great game going.
They
> figured out how to use the Internet to give music away that they didn't
own and make
> it into a business. Everyone was planning on getting rich there at one
point. The
> companies that are financing and own copyrights stepped in and
challenged it, and
> it's not a very rosy picture for them right now. I think the idea of
copyright is
> very important -- and it's respected by the courts and our government --
and as
> people realize the potential of what the Internet with digital can do in
terms of
> distribution, I think there's a good decision to be made that will
protect the
> copyright .... Someone's going to have to recognize that once we've
entered the
> digital world people can send out perfect copies without any costs to
large numbers
> of people in many different territories of the world [and] can
dramatically disrupt
> the system that we've built that allows us to produce and distribute
content and pay
> for it and make ... a profit in the investment, and that has to be
addressed."
>
==================
How soon before it's illegal to turn the TV off? :-)
Ian