The movie studios and the MPAA have been pushing hard over the last year to get the FCC to let them use "selectable output control" to basically block DVRs from recording certain broadcasts of movies. Their somewhat creative (but totally ridiculous) argument is that this would allow more consumer choice. Now, you might ask how limiting what consumers can do with products they already purchased can possibly allow more consumer choice, but this is where the MPAA tries to play a bit of a jedi mind trick. It claims that if it's allowed to block recording of movies, then it would add another window to its windowed release program of movies (i.e., theater -> special locations (airplanes/hotels) -> DVD -> cable TV -> network TV). If they can break your DVR, they claim that they'll also release it to TV before it's even out on DVD.

Now, it doesn't take much thought to see the logical flaw in the MPAA's plan, but since some politicians are a bit slow, we'll spell it out for them. You don't need to block recording to release the movies early. There's absolutely nothing stopping the MPAA from offering this "consumer choice" right now. The MPAA is simply trying to confuse politicians into thinking that they can't possibly add this other way to get paid for the same content without this DVR-breaking DRM. The simple fact is that (a) selectable output control won't stop the movies from being recorded by some and (b) it won't stop the movies from being offered in unauthorized format online. It won't do a damn thing to stop "piracy." But it will annoy an awful lot of people who bought a DVR to record what they see on TV and are seriously pissed off at why they can't actually make the product they bought work legally.

In other words, it's not at all about "expanded consumer choice." It's about giving the MPAA another way to block legitimate watchers from doing perfectly legal time shifting of the content on their TV.

The good news was that when Kevin Martin ran the FCC, he turned down the MPAA. Though we heard mixed reasons on why (one story is that he tried to do some "horse trading" whereby he would give the MPAA what it wanted if they would side with him on things like a la carte cable), it at least kept the MPAA down. Of course, with Martin gone, it hasn't taken long at all for the movie studios to rush right back up to the new FCC yammering on and on about "expanded consumer choices." Hopefully Michael Copps (the temporary FCC boss) and the rest of the FCC are smart enough to recognize that you don't expand consumer choice by breaking their DVRs.

The MPAA has been pushing the FCC to allow it to basically add a kind of DRM to broadcasts. As it stands, the FCC blocks broadcasters from using "selectable output control" (SOC) to stop people from recording shows broadcast on television. They do this realizing that recording for the purposes of time or place shifting is perfectly legal, and allowing broadcasters to block consumer rights would be tremendously undesirable.

The movie studios, however, are trying to figure out yet another way to get money, and they want to rejigger release windows for movies. The way they're done now, movies are released to theaters, then special locations (airplanes, hotels), then DVD, then cable and finally network TV. What the studios would like to do is charge cable companies a lot of money to show movies on cable after they're in theaters but before they're released on DVD. Their (misguided) fear is that, if they show them on TV, people will record them and make them available via file sharing sites, killing off the DVD business. This is wrong on many levels, especially since high quality versions of the movies are almost always available on file sharing networks long before they are released on DVD, anyway. So, blocking the ability to record the movies on your DVR (which is what loosening SOC restrictions would do) wouldn't actually do anything to stop piracy -- but would piss off an awful lot of DVR owners out there, who want to know why they can't record the latest movies on TV.

The MPAA has been saying a lot of funny things in trying to defend its position, claiming that this form of DRM is necessary to let the studios release the movies early. That's simply wrong. There is nothing stopping the studios from releasing the movies in this manner right now. It's just their own misguided fear of people doing what they're legally allowed to do (record stuff on their TV) that's stopping them.

Yet, now, as a bunch of you have sent in, it seems the MPAA is going even further in this "up is down, black is white" argument in favor of being able to use SOC. It's claiming that it's the movie studios who are being pro-innovation here, and it's the consumer electronics companies (and consumers) who are anti-innovation:

"At its core, the position of CEA is that technology should be frozen in time, and any new services that require advanced technology should be banned," the MPAA told Adelstein on November 25. "This position is quite astonishing, coming from an organization that in the past has advocated in favor of technological innovation."

This is a neat bit of intellectual judo. Take your opponents (accurate) argument, and claim that it's actually your argument. The MPAA is lying, of course. They don't need SOC to innovate and release movies however they want. And, the CEA is quite pro-innovation, in letting consumers actually make use of their rights to record content. It's quite a statement for the MPAA to claim that taking away consumer rights is innovation. But, I guess that's what you get from a dying organization fighting for its life.

You may recall back in June we wrote about the MPAA's petition to the FCC to block DVR recordings of certain movies by removing a restriction on "Selectable Output Control" (SOC), allowing it to set rules that forbid recording. What the MPAA is clearly trying to do here is start releasing movies on TV before they're available on DVD, but wants to do so in a way that users won't be able to record on their DVRs (though, they hardly come out and say that). Matthew Lasar has an absolutely hilarious interview with an MPAA representative where the MPAA guy tries to pretend that this has nothing to do with blocking recordings of movies and everything to do with stopping piracy.

"I can't emphasize this enough," Oster finally exclaimed. "We've hit on this a number of times so you might sense some frustration in my voice. 'Recording'—take it off the table. Put it out of your mind. This has nothing to do with recording at all in any way."

"Ok. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"

"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollar's worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.

"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"

"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."

"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.

"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"

"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.

"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!"

Let's translate this for everyone. Basically, the MPAA falsely believes that it has a problem with camcording. It likes to come out with all sorts of bogus stats that don't add up. The truth is that camcorded versions don't keep people from going to the movies, and most movies online have studio quality versions leaked from insiders.

So what does that have to do with SOC? Not much, really. But the MPAA wants to change the release window pattern it currently uses for movies. Rather than theaters, video, PPV, cable TV, it wants to be able to put some movies on TV before they're released to video, hoping that it can charge cable channels a lot for showing them. But, if it does that, it's worried that it will undercut its own business model in the video rental space. So, it falsely believes that it needs this "exemption" from SOC to effectively enable DRM on those movies to prevent them from being recorded. It's the same old mistake, believing that DRM somehow enables new business models when the truth is that DRM only restricts opportunities. The content will still get recorded and released. The effective DRM will do nothing to stop that -- and once the content is out there, it's out there. However, this will be a pain for plenty of legitimate viewers who start wondering why their DVRs don't work properly.

It's not about stopping any kind of piracy. This won't do that. It's not about enabling any new business models or new content. It's about a misguided MPAA which thinks it needs DRM to add yet another way for it to make money while pissing off legitimate users. For that, the FCC should not grant a special exemption.

Reader DEF writes in to point us to an interesting catch from Jason Kottke. At least some broadcasters seem to have taken things to the next level in trying to get people to watch ads without fast forwarding through them with a DVR: they literally have an overlay ad "pause" the TV show. You pretty much have to watch it to understand it, so here it is: These overlay ads have become quite common, but having one (even jokingly) pause the action in the show that you're watching certainly seems like overkill, which is going to annoy a lot more viewers than it convinces to watch the show being advertised.

After certain NBC TV shows wouldn't record on Microsoft's Vista Media Center a few weeks ago, Microsoft admitted that Media Center includes broadcast flag technology, while NBC Universal admitted that it accidentally set the flag. However, now Microsoft is trying to clarify, claiming that it's not actually the broadcast flag that it included, but an entirely different flag, called CGMS-A. NBC Universal concurs, saying that the mistake it made was in setting the CGMS-A flag. Of course... the real question is why does this matter at all? If the impact is identical (Microsoft willing to let TV networks declare a show un-recordable), then what does it matter which annoying copy protection scheme is used?

A few months ago, we wrote about how ABC was excitedly testing a new DVR technology that would prevent people from fast forwarding through commercials on their DVR. If this seems dumb and destined to fail, that's because it's dumb and destined to fail. You don't compete with things like a fully functional DVR that has features people want by creating a crappy DVR that doesn't have the features people want. That story got plenty of attention -- which should have made its way back to ABC. But, if it did, the company is ignoring it. As reader Joey writes in to let us know, at ABC's recent "upfronts" where it pitches its latest efforts to advertisers, it's still excitedly pushing the idea of the fast-forward-disabled DVR (in the update at 4:34). The NY Times reporter claimed it was "a fancy way to combat DVR use." Except, that it's not. It's a dumb way to combat DVR use because all it will do is anger a bunch of people and get them to go out and buy a DVR that doesn't do that sort of thing.

And here we go again with rumors about questionable DRM tactics involving Microsoft and NBC Universal. Just days after a (later denied, after first being confirmed) report that Microsoft was going to put a "copyright cop" into Zune devices, users of Microsoft's Vista Media Center were upset to find that they were unable to record certain NBC Universal television shows earlier this week. Instead, they received error messages reading: "Restrictions set by the broadcaster and/or originator prohibit recording of this program." That would suggest, at the very least, that Microsoft's Media Center does allow content broadcasters to block shows from being recorded -- even if it turns out that they didn't block these particular shows on purpose. My guess is that this was an accident in this case, because it would be quite surprising to find out that NBC Universal and Microsoft would do this officially without any kind of announcement. However, given that other DVR systems out there do not have any such restrictions, this should serve as yet another reason not to trust Microsoft and its DRM efforts. Update: Some folks in the comments reminded us that TiVo had a similar problem a year and a half ago, which was equally problematic. There are still other DVR offerings out there that do not include these "features."

Broadband Reports points us to the news that Comcast has been experimenting (internally only) with putting cameras into DVRs in order to determine who and how many people are watching. Comcast lays out the reasons why this might be useful -- such as recognizing if a child is watching, so that child content filters are automatically turned on, or merely recognizing certain preferences based on who's watching. However, the creepiness factor of such an offering is quite high, and I doubt many people would be comfortable with such a camera -- especially coming from a company like Comcast that's been getting blasted for its traffic shaping efforts. Besides, it will be too tempting for marketers to avoid misusing such a technology. Nielsen, for example, has been trying to come up with all sorts of ways to figure out if people are really watching commercials or TV shows, or if they just leave the TV on and are doing something else. Think how tempting it would be to "spy" on people to get a sense of what they're really doing. If such a system was going to work, the homeowner would need to have full control over the camera. If it acted just like a computer webcam, with the individual having full control over how it was used and how it could be accessed, then people might be more comfortable with it (plus, conceivably it could open up the ability for people to do video chat via their TVs). But if it's sending any info back to Comast, it's going to make people exceptionally uncomfortable.

First we had ABC thinking that not allowing people to fast forward through commercials on a DVR-type product was a good idea, and now comes the news that DirecTV will automatically delete Pay-Per-View shows you record with your DVR after 24-hours. This is apparently at the request of the major Hollywood studios who have decided that the best way to build up an audience is to piss them off by not allowing them to record the movies that they legally paid for via PPV, and then chose to record and time shift. Time shifting is perfectly legal, so there's absolutely no legal reason for DirecTV to ban the practice. As for the Hollywood studios, this is more backwards thinking. One of these days, someone in Hollywood is going to realize that pissing off your loyal customers isn't a good idea.

About a year and a half ago, an executive at Disney-owned ABC-TV talked about how the network was experimenting with ways to block people from fast forwarding through commercials. The exec in question even claimed that commercial-skipping wasn't even a very important feature for most DVR-owners. Despite the widespread criticism of this statement, it appears that ABC is now preparing to test that theory. In association with cable company Cox, it's testing a new video-on-demand feature that won't let viewers fast forward through commercials. We'll be the first to say it: this is dumb. While it may make a few more people watch commercials, it won't make them happy about it. And, given just how many other options there are these days, the end result might be that people just choose not to watch such ABC programming at all, let alone the commercials.

Yet various ABC executives seem to think that by offering this product, they can stop people from buying DVRs. Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC television group, claims: "You don't need TiVo if you have fast-forward-disabled video on demand. It gives you the same opportunity to catch up to your favorite shows." Not quite. First of all, you're limited to shows on ABC. Second, who knows if the additional features are as useful. Finally, one of the nice things about TiVo (oh, right!) is that it lets you watch a 30-minute show in 22-minutes, since you can skip the commercials (whoops). So, yes, many people will still want a TiVo because ABC is forcing the fast forward option to be disabled.

Then there's Ray Cole, who owns some ABC affiliates. He says: "As network and affiliates, we both have an interest in slowing down the explosive growth of DVRs. This is about combating DVRs. As we developed this at every stage, there was an agreement that however we put this together, disabling the fast-forward function was key." I'm curious as to how Mr. Cole thinks offering a product that does much less and deliberately takes away a key feature will "slow down" the "explosive growth of DVRs." You don't compete by offering a worse product. You compete by offering a better product. Taking away one of the key selling points of a product is not exactly a major selling point.