Group4LobbyistReport

Group4LobbyistReport - Digital Rights Management Report...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Digital Rights Management Report Justin Ng Sumit Misra Abdul Hadee Hakeem Group 4: DRM Con Econ 11
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Ever since the first establishment of cable television technology in the late 1980’s, citizens, generation after generation, have enjoyed watching countless hours of broadcast television. With the establishment of cable television technology came a new production of high quality cameras for the improved broadcast system. The year was 1996 when Congress finally passed a bill stating that there would be a new ten year transition period from the previous broadcasting system of analog television to the new high quality of digital television. Initially, the plan set both systems would be in place until 2006 when analog would finally shut off. The arguments for and against the transition soon appeared, but after the production of the DVD (Digital Video Disc), the transition began to take its place. With this new technology of the DVD and DVR (digital video recorder), recording the new high quality digital television became simplified without any expense of loss of quality. (Llana) With the increased fear of pirating content from downloadable music, legislation feared the same result, calling for a solution to the lack of digital broadcast copy protection. The case brought to legislation dealt with a similar manner of that of illegally shared music, labeled as Digital Rights Management. Digital Rights Management or DRM is sanctioned as the access of control technologies used by both manufacturers and consumers alike through digital content and devices. DRM for the portion of digital television media brought the Federal Communications Committee to the debate in terms of copyright ownership. (DRM) In 2002, the FCC proposed a solution known as for the lack of copyright protection through their idea known as the “broadcast video flag”. With the FCC’s video flag in place, the solution was to “flag” certain content broadcasted from cable providers which would disable all forms of recording, ensuring there
Background image of page 2
would be no illegal redistribution of the content. In analysis of the proposed solution, consumers both public and private sit on the losing end of the debate, losing on the terms of rights. (CRS) The broadcast video flag is a bad proposal on the terms that consumers are taking the majority of “damage” from the suggested legislation losing the main right of free speech as well as other minor factors. In retrospect to the beneficiaries who support the flag, this report represents the recipients of the flag, primarily the local community that watches the broadcast in contrast to the companies. One of the major stakeholders that play an important role in the debate is simply the general public. Anyone in possession of a digital television and a paid cable provider is subject to becoming victims to the FCC proposal with their ushered restrictions on the freedom of digital media. Other smaller percentages of non-supporters for the flag would include educators as well
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 9

Group4LobbyistReport - Digital Rights Management Report...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online