Calling Out the Copy Controllers

Let's talk about the language for a second. In yesterday's column I revisited the topic of copyright politics, this time issues surrounding the transition to digital television. And once again, you'll note that I didn't use the standard catch-phrase of "copy protection" when I describe what movie studios and the NFL want applied to their broadcasts.

I avoid this phrase because I think it's misleading. "Copy protection," when read at face value, suggests something that benefits you -- a way to make sure that your own copy of something can't be damaged. (Think, for example, about the little tab you can punch out on a videotape to stop it from being taped over.)

But to groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Football League, copy protection is really a system of copy controls -- technology that limits your ability to make copies. The copies these systems might allow you to make are usually quite unprotected: They might expire if you move them off of one computer or try to take them out of your house. The only thing that's protected in these situations is the copyrights of the movie studios, sports leagues, record labels and other producers of things you watch and listen to.

My job is to describe what I find as clearly as possible, so I decided a while back to drop "copy protection" in favor of more accurate phrases like "copy controls," "copy restrictions" and "copy limitations." They take up no more room in print, and they let us all carry on the conversation with much less confusion.

If you'd like to read more about the copy-control technology that TiVo has proposed to the Federal Communications Commission, you can read its original application online. A follow-up letter explains more, including why TiVo feels that attempting to limit playback to a home network won't work.

To read the full list of comments on TiVo's proposal (most are from the MPAA and the NFL, but Major League Baseball submitted a letter opposing TiVo, while the tech-policy advocacy group Public Knowledge sent in a few supporting the company), visit gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and search for "04-63" (that's the docket number for the TiVo application; yes, the FCC's search system could be a little easier to use).

One last thought about this topic: I wonder if the people who are so desperate to preserve the idea of blacking out TV coverage of home games have thought about the implications of camera- and camcorder-equipped cell phones. It will not be long before anybody in the stands can send footage of the game to a friend just with their cell phone. Sure, the resolution would be terrible, and the sight lines might not be that great either. But what are teams going to do about this? Screen for the "wrong" kind of cell phones at the gates? Tell ushers to watch for people holding up cell phones in the stands? Somehow, I don't see either option going over well with fans.

Whatever happens, I highly doubt that seeing a football or baseball game in person is going to go out of style. Let's not forget: It's fun, damnit! There is no substitute for getting sunburned as you scream yourself hoarse and drink a $6 beer. People will gladly pay a lot of money for this experience. (Do we have to get into how much I've paid on eBay for tickets to a Sox-Yankees game at Fenway?)

Two Halves of the Same Apple

Apple made the news twice this week -- once in a good way and once in a bad way. Good Apple announced that it would make iTunes Music Store downloads playable on Motorola wireless phones. It's great to see Apple making moves to broaden the iTunes Music Store's reach; next ought to be a deal to get iTunes running on Palm handhelds.

Bad Apple, meanwhile, got in a spat with RealNetworks after the Seattle media software developer said that it would release software, called Harmony, that would allow playback of songs bought at its own music store on Apple's iPod music player.

Apple replied by saying it might sue Real under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (a far- reaching law loathed by many technologists for its tilt towards copyright holders at the expense of fair-use rights). It also suggested that it would release iPod updates to stop Real's software from working. "We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod," Apple spluttered in a statement.

Engadget, a tech-news Weblog, had the best response to Apple's statement that I've seen: "Hackers are your best customers, hackers are people who are curious, want to do more with technology, like to figure stuff out -- ya know, they like to 'think different.'"

For me, all I can say to Apple is "grow up." Threatening DMCA lawsuits will not earn you any fans and won't sell any more iPods. If anything, you should be happy to see other companies adding to the iPod's utility.

Office Update

Last (where I always save the most exciting news!), Microsoft released its first major update to Office 2003, Service Pack 1. Want more details about this free download? Here's a full list of the changes it includes.

-- Rob Pegoraro (rob@twp.com)