INDUSTRY GROUPS SEE LIMITED CONSENSUS ON BROADCAST FLAG STANDARD
Cross-section of industry executives said they had reached consensus on how to protect digital broadcast content from unauthorized retransmission over Internet. But it was apparent from report they released Tues. that consensus was far from unanimous on subject. Many companies and groups that were part of negotiating process objected to final agreement, citing problems with almost every aspect. Report by Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) -- composed of movie, TV, consumer electronics and other executives -- said there was “substantial agreement” on use of redistribution control descriptor established earlier by Advanced TV Systems Committee (ATSC) for signal protection for digital TV (DTV) content. Report was sent to Copy Protection Technical Working Group, which is expected to submit it to Congress for possible legislation. BPDG said it didn’t think it was appropriate venue to address enforcement issues, so it recommended establishing parallel group to work on those questions.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Specific “broadcast flag” to be used is ATSC standard A/65A, and protection requirements should begin at point of demodulation of incoming 8-VSB, 16-VSB, 64-QAM or 256-QAM digital signal, report said. For digital cable distribution of DTV, requirements can be implemented in cable systems using point of deployment (POD) module to pass through content in encrypted form, it said. Because satellite and cable services can encrypt DTV signal retransmissions, they may not need to implement broadcast flag solution. However, another group of executives was asked to recommend any requirements necessary to ensure that such content is protected when retransmitted.
When demodulated DTV content has been screened and broadcast flag isn’t present and it’s otherwise unmarked, no further requirements or limitations should be imposed on handling or recording, study said. It said requirements to protect digital recordings shouldn’t interfere with ability of consumers to make secure copies of DTV content marked with broadcast flag either on personal video recorders or tapes or discs. Report said requirements to protect digital outputs shouldn’t interfere with ability of consumers to send DTV content across secure home digital network digital devices.
But that was major point of contention for group members who manufacture consumer electronics. Draft requirements would permit computer products to continue to deliver protected DTV content through unprotected outputs at certain level of video quality. Provision was designed to accommodate legacy computer monitors. Some participants suggested that that capability also apply to CE products so that cable and satellite set-top boxes could deliver DTV content to legacy computer monitors.
Some participants said scope of protection should be limited to unauthorized redistribution over Internet. Others said parallel group should consider more precise definition of protection to clarify whether it applied to retransmission of DTV in “personal” environments, such as in home, car, portable devices and communications devices between primary and secondary homes. Philips also offered alternative “flag preserving” method, but that was rejected by majority because they said it would be based on compliance rather than self-protection. Philips and some other CE manufacturers also suggested that for limited number of years, in-the-clear recordings of unscreened yet marked content could be made using standard definition DVD recorders. Motion picture companies opposed such “grandfather” provision because millions of legacy DVD-ROM drives would remain capable of unauthorized redistribution of that content.
MPAA Pres. Jack Valenti said he was pleased industries were able to reach consensus, although he admitted it was far from unanimous decision. He expressed hope that all CE manufacturers would have to conform all of their licensed products to protect digital broadcast content. “This will undoubtedly require some kind of government mandate by way of legislation or regulation or a combination of both, but whatever it is, it would be very narrowly focused and very tightly drawn,” Valenti said. He said agreement didn’t address either analog hole or peer-to-peer file sharing. CEA said it still was reviewing report and so couldn’t comment on it in its entirety. However, CEA’s spokesman said Assn. agreed with objections laid out by many of its members on home recording and fair use rights. He also said he believed process was rushed because of copy protection bill recently introduced by Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D- S.C.). CCIA said pact would harm industry and betray consumers -- and plan wouldn’t work. “Since all PCs must copy files to function, no computer scientist has yet developed an anticopying technology that is actually effective without simultaneously hobbling the machine,” the group said. CCIA also criticized plan for giving “Hollywood -- not consumers -- the right to decide what the public may and may not record in the privacy of their own homes.”
Also objecting was Electronic Frontier Foundation, which said Hollywood studios essentially were demanding that CE industry redesign DTVs. “Congress, industry and consumers must all reject Hollywood’s attempt to force an unconscionable government mandate restricting technology innovation and the rights of digital television consumers,” EFF staff technologist Seth Schoen said. EFF said whole process was flawed because group reached many of its decisions based on views of few private companies.