Be The Media

"So Sue Me"

Being a Norwegian/English/Scottish/American, I had to publish this one - "DVD-Jon is back in the news - he's the guy that became a hero to global hackers (and DVD consumers) when he developed and distributed a program that copies DVD movies - WHEN HE WAS JUST 15 years old. Yet more proof to Hollywood that no matter how "secure" their digital entertainment, some 15 year old kid somewhere in the world may be able to eventually hack it. They have all the time in the world - and since they are broke - the desire too!

More from Reuters:

"Norwegian Hacker Rebuts Music Piracy Criticism" A Norwegian hacker famed for defeating Hollywood in a cyber piracy trial on Thursday rejected allegations he had illegally unlocked a code that enables unauthorised copying of music files from the Internet.

Jon Johansen, a 20-year-old computer programmer who was cleared of piracy charges in January, has developed a source code for copying music and posted it on the Internet less than a week before he is due to appear in an Oslo appeals court.

Johansen's code allows users of Apple Computer Inc.'s new iTunes online music store to break digital rights management (DRM) technology that prevents people copying files downloaded from the service.

On an Internet site named "So Sue Me", Johansen said critics had "failed to understand that by buying into DRM they have given the seller complete control over the product after it's been sold," calling them "clueless about copyright law".

Johansen, whose DVD-copying made him a hero to hackers worldwide, said he had received a string of emails accusing him of violating copyright law linked to the iTunes codes."

The FCC Rollback Hoax

Josh Silver writes for FreePress:

"During the last two days, powerbrokers in Congress once again went behind closed doors, ignored the public interest, and acted on behalf of giant media conglomerates instead of democracy and the public interest.

Despite the heroic efforts of many members of both the House and Senate -both Democrat and Republican - Congressional leadership and the White House used tricky tactics and trickier legislation to create the illusion of a partial FCC rollback while serving up yet another give away to Big Media.

This week Congress put a bogus FCC rollback provision into a giant spending bill that will likely pass as early as December 8th. The only provision of the June 2nd FCC rule changes that was considered during the negotiations was the "national broadcast cap" - the percentage of American TV viewers who may be reached by stations owned by one company. For those of us trying to stop media monopoly, this rule is much less important than the newspaper/TV/radio cross ownership and television duopoly/triopoly rules that were not even on the table in this most recent negotiation.

Rather than roll back the national TV cap to the pre-June 2nd 35% level, Congress changed it to 39% and professes that it will be "permanent." This is not a randomly selected number. It just so happens that Viacom (owners of CBS) currently owns stations reaching 38.8% of American households, and News Corp (owners of Fox) owns stations reaching 37.8%. Both purposely violated the old legal limit hoping Congress or the FCC would change the rule. Had the 35% limit stuck, they could well have been forced to sell off some stations to come into compliance. With a 39% limit, CBS and Fox can keep their stations while NBC and ABC can substantially expand holdings. Further, the new legislative language allows any company to violate the rules for up to two years without penalty--a loophole that will invite precisely the same kind of chicanery that resulted in Viacom and Fox getting a 4% increase in the broadcast cap to accommodate their illegal acquisitions.

So Congress hears the massive public outcry, addresses a tiny portion of the disastrous FCC decision, and custom tailors it so that it looks like a concession while letting Big Media have their way.

The real story is that in all the fuss over 35%, 39%, or 45%, the far more significant rules have gone through virtually unnoticed. All that holds them back at present is the September decision by a federal court to stay the rules pending a judicial review of their integrity. Failing a heroic judicial victory next year by attorneys with the Media Access Project (MAP) who are challenging the FCC, these rules will be implemented with very little attention from Capitol Hill. We're hopeful that next year's court case will be successful, but we are still far from victory. (Of course we'll keep you posted)

At the end of the day, a superficial victory has been won with the broadcast cap--even with the 39% sell-out. The White House was forced to back down to public pressure, which it has done on very few issues. Although we shouldn't be naive. They are trying to stick us with corporate welfare in the name of public service, gambling we won't be smart enough to figure it out. But they've given us a foot in the door. It is our job now to force it all the way open. Now we must refocus the debate on the impact of permitting cross-ownership--effectively the creation of near-monopoly media control in every city in America. This is the 800-pound gorilla lurking in the corner as Congress debates relatively small changes in broadcast ownership."

Democrats decry 'compromise' on FCC rule

From the Washington Post:

"Prominent Senate Democrats were angered by the deal struck late Monday between the White House and Republican congressional leaders that would limit how many television stations networks may own and said they would fight it in Congress next year.

At issue was the Federal Communications Commission's "media ownership cap." In June, the FCC relaxed several media ownership rules and raised the television station cap, saying broadcast networks such as CBS and Fox can buy more stations and expand their reach to 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent."

The White House and Senate Republican leaders compromised on a national cap of 39 percent.

"I don't like it going up 4 percent, but 39 percent is a lot better than 45 percent," Stevens said yesterday.

"The Republicans went into a closet, met with themselves, and announced a 'compromise,' " Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) said in a prepared statement. "The Democrats and the conferees were ignored, and the press ought to be ashamed of calling it a 'compromise.' We weren't a part of it whatsoever."

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), whose "resolution of disapproval" rolling back all of the FCC's new rules passed the Senate in September, was a conferee on the House and Senate committee considering the spending bill. He was told that Stevens's 35 percent rider was intact in the spending bill and that that section of the bill had been closed to debate.

Then he read about the Republican-White House compromise in media reports yesterday.

"The White House is not a part of our conference. This is a legislative branch function," Dorgan wrote to Stevens yesterday. "I, and others who have fought so hard to overturn these rules, will not sit quietly by while the White House insists on provisions that are counter to the public's interest."

Of the four networks, CBS and Fox already own groups of stations that exceed the 35 percent cap, with CBS at 39 percent and Fox at 38 percent. Stations owned by NBC reach about 35 percent of the country, while ABC's stations reach less than 25 percent. "

'Tell Us The Truth' tour rages against global media

The 'Tell Us The Truth' tour launched this week, combining music and activism in order to slam corporate globalization and media consolidation.

More from Steve Morse of the Boston Globe:

Its caravan of acts — featuring Tom Morello (of Audioslave and Rage Against the Machine), Billy Bragg, Steve Earle, and Lester Chambers. "There hasn't been an explicitly political tour since 1988's Amnesty International tour," says Morello, referring to the "Human Rights Now!" aggregation that included Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band, Sting, Tracy Chapman and Peter Gabriel.

"A few massive corporations will soon control all we see on TV and print and radio," says the Harvard-educated Morello. "There's a very narrow number of gatekeepers, and that can be very destabilizing for a democracy. Ten years ago, 50 corporations controlled the major media outlets. Now it's down to six," he says. "And everybody loses except the super-rich at the top."

"Media consolidation has already finished radio off," says Earle, "because it's so hard now to break a new band. And this affects the quality of art we get. . . . I don't have a problem with the pop tarts that radio plays, but there are far fewer edgy artists. A Tom Waits, Rickie Lee Jones, or Randy Newman might have no place today."

Earle is also disturbed by the consolidation taking place within the record industry, where big labels are swallowing smaller ones every day, it seems. And because a few labels are so big (and so driven by profits), they don't have any patience with developing bands through the course of several albums, as they once did.

"R.E.M. didn't break big until their fourth record," says Earle. "I don't think that could happen today. Now it's one record and you're out if it doesn't sell. We're going to have to find other ways to sell music."

FCC critics claim symbolic victory with Congressional action

Communications Daily reported:

"The Appropriations rider on media ownership agreed to by House and Senate negotiators, if signed into law, would have little practical effect on the companies involved in the near future, industry and govt. officials said. That’s because the rider would stop the FCC for only one year from implementing its new 45% ownership cap by blocking any federal money from being used for that purpose. The rider, which is part of an omnibus Appropriations package, would be void after Oct. 1, 2004.

Meantime, the rules still are subject to a stay by the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, which will hear challenges to their validity in mid-Feb. The court could take a year or more to decide whether the FCC’s June 2 decision to raise its 35% cap to 45% was legally justified, so the rules remain in legal limbo, where they have been since the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in 2002 remanded the 35% cap to the FCC, saying the agency had failed to justify the old rule. "

"Media Access Project (MAP), which is leading the consumer charge against the FCC’s rules, called the rider “a stinging rebuke of Michael Powell.” MAP Pres. Andrew Schwartzman acknowledged that the rider, assuming it passed, would have little practical effect but said he believed Bush and congressional leaders had underestimated the “the depth and breadth of the opposition” to the new rules. Schwartzman said that as far as the majority of Congress and the public was concerned, “the FCC has been discredited and [FCC Chmn.] Michael Powell is damaged goods.” Asked whether the rider might have some bearing on the court case, Schwartzman said it would become part of the “post-enactment legislative history,” which might affect the judges’ thinking but probably wouldn’t carry the weight of the legislative history of the 1996 Telecom Act itself. "

FCC may approve DirecTV purchase

From the Wall Street Journal:

"WASHINGTON — News Corp.'s proposed $6.6 billion acquisition of Hughes Electronics Corp.'s DirectTV unit is expected to win federal approval — but with conditions to ensure that the combined company doesn't yank programming from cable company rivals and unfairly boost prices for consumers.

Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Justice Department — both are reviewing the deal — have found any showstopper issues, according to people familiar with situation. But top FCC officials are considering requiring News Corp.'s Fox to enter arbitration to resolve pricing and other disputes with cable-television providers. These people said regulators are reviewing whether it's legal to require binding arbitration."

"Cable companies contend News Corp. already plays hardball in negotiating new contracts, threatening to withhold popular Fox sports and other programming to get better prices. Because DirectTV is the nation's largest satellite-television provider with more than 11 million subscribers, cable operators argue the combined company would have added incentive to degrade cable lineups by refusing to sell Fox programming while offering it on DirectTV."

FCC critics score on national TV-cap rollback, but Dorgan won't issue cross-ownership amendment

From Broadcasting & Cable:

"Lawmakers trying to roll back the Federal Communications Commission's national cap on TV ownership apparently scored a big victory over their leaders and the White House Wednesday night.

Senate and House negotiators hashing out which provisions will be included in a catch-all spending bill Congress is scheduled to pass before Thanksgiving break agreed to include a measure that would return the cap to 35% of TV households, said a staffer for Sen. Byron Dorgan. The North Dakota Democrat is a sponsor of the measure."

"President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation reversing the FCC's recent broadcast deregulation and House Majority Leader Tom Delay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had angled to eliminate the national cap rollback, which has been inserted into the spending bill by the Sen. Ted Stevens, Dorgan and others on the Senate Appropriations Committee."

Powell news putdown irks affiliates

From Broadcasting & Cable:

"Network affiliates said Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell is relying on bad information to demean their newscasts.

The NAB and the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance penned a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain Wednesday asking the Arizona Republican to ignore Powell’s repeated assertion that network O&Os do a better job of local news than affiliates.

Powell’s claim, a response to McCain’s questions about the TV ownership cap, is based on FCC data that affiliates say ignores that their stations tend to be in smaller markets with less ad revenue. "The commission should explain why it refuses to address … market size," the trade groups told McCain."

Corruption in the magazine industry

We finally get to see directly what was always assumed - corruption in the magazine industry. One of the largest publishers - Gruner and Jahr Publishing - had TWO SETS OF BOOKS. From David Carr in the NY Times:

"The judge suggested that there will be little in the way of monetary damages in the trial over who is to blame for the demise of Rosie magazine, but there is plenty of collateral damage to the publishing industry.

Gruner & Jahr Publishing USA initiated the lawsuit against Rosie O'Donnell in part to clear its name, but opened itself up to testimony that may have significantly damaged its reputation, as well as the industry's. During the trial, it became clear that Gruner & Jahr kept two sets of books: one set tracked the actual circulation performance of the magazine, the other much more positive set was sent to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

The price of magazine advertising is based, in large part, on those figures — and media buyers were left to wonder just how much they should trust a publisher's numbers. Documents in evidence showed that in some instances, Gruner & Jahr reported more than twice the newsstands sales that Rosie was actually achieving.

"This has been a terrible week for the magazine industry," an executive at a competing firm said last week. "Many of us are very careful in terms of our reporting and now we are going to have to defend ourselves against what these guys did."

Free music lessons thanks to file sharing

One of the most prestigious music schools in the country is embracing file sharing. The Berklee School of Music (alumni include Quincy Jones, Diana Krall, John Mayer, Melissa Etheridge and HEATHER COMBS) began putting free, downloadable music lessons on file sharing networks such as Kazaa.

More from Benny Evangelista at the San Francisco Chronicle:

The school hopes its new program, called Berklee Shares, helps teach future musicians and recording industry executives to accept, not fear, online file sharing as the new future of the music industry.

The school does not advocate giving away music for free but says the record industry should find new ways to profit from file sharing, he said. "Suing customers is the wrong thing to do," he said. "They're never going to stop it unless they shut down the Internet. So why not embrace it?"