When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
from the protection-vs.-enablement dept
Back in October, I was on a panel in Hollywood with Kevin Suh of the MPAA, whose title was “VP of Content Protection.” Kevin was quite nice and I enjoyed the conversation with him, but as I noted in my blog post at the time, just the fact that the MPAA has a “VP of Content Protection” suggested how misdirected the MPAA’s strategies are these days. What I didn’t realize is that there’s a whole bunch of folks with similar titles. Hillicon Valley has an article about how the MPAA’s content protection staff is shuffling roles, and it mentions how Suh has been promoted from VP of Content Protection to Senior VP of Content Protection (congrats, btw). But the article also points out that his boss, Mike Robinson, has been promoted to Executive VP of Content Protection and his boss is “Chief Content Protection Officer” Daniel Mandil.
The problem, of course, is that this assumes a key point: that content needs “protection.” It wipes out even the possibility that there may be better strategies than focusing on trying to do the impossible and “protecting” content. It’s sort of like an entire department tasked with demanding the tide never come in. Perhaps the MPAA could take some of that money it’s used for “content protection” (whose crowning task so far has been to get Homeland Security to seize a bunch of domains on an extremely questionable legal basis) and instead put it towards encouraging and enabling new, useful and profitable business models. I guess it’s just easier to have a whole department based on playing victim, rather than being proactive and helping filmmakers adjust to the market.