Zombies, Pirates, and Why the Latest Copyright Fray Over Set-Top Box Undermines Itself

[Commentary] A key goal of the set-top box proceeding is to ensure consumers who already pay for content through cable or online apps are able to access it in the most low-maintenance, seamless way possible. The argument by Big Hollywood is therefore perplexing: that consumers who have already elected to pay a lot for lawful, high-quality content will somehow be driven by the mere availability of Internet access on a cable box to go on a pirating rampage. That's content they will have to go online, hunt down, and break the law to watch -- and it's in all likelihood lower quality than what they are paying for. Why, exactly, would consumers feel the need to do this? For the sheer rogue thrill of it? “Spend more of your money and more of your time to watch the programming you seek in terrible quality!” doesn’t strike me as a particularly alluring concept.

But let's get real. This isn't really about pirating cable over the box. It's just a rerun of the same Hollywood complaint that applies to any computer, or your Roku or Apple TV, smartphone - flatly, anything that exists today that can connect to the internet and has search functionality. Opposing a competitive set-top proposal because you're worried the internet more generally facilitates pirating makes about as much sense as opposing a competitive automobile marketplace because bank robbers sometimes use roads to flee the scene of the crime. It’s non sequiter at its highest. If the complaint you all really want to make is that you just generally, broadly oppose the concept of open devices and open Internet access, and that you don't want these innovative viewing technologies to become popular, you’re free to do so. But should you get what you want, a reversion to an incumbent-controlled video model on anachronistic, closed devices, I get the feeling you're likely to see a whole lot more unlawful viewership, not less