Council for Research Excellence. Traditional Television Remains "800 Pound Gorilla" In Video Media Arena. Richard Zackon. 26 Mar 2009. <http://www.researchexcellence.com/news/032609_vcm.php?>

This Video Consumer Mapping (VCM) study has shown that traditional television is safe from an Internet television takeover. Surprisingly, the study also yielded the results that younger baby boomers (individuals aged 45-54) watch the most Internet TV, when the common belief is that Internet television is most rapidly consumed by teenagers and twenty-something year-olds. The young baby boomers not only watch the most Internet TV, but the have the greatest amount of “daily screen time” as well. However, the difference between the screen time of young baby boomers and the rest of the population is minimal (9 ½ hours versus 8 ½ hours). The VCM research also found that the amount of online television that viewers watch pales in comparison to their time spent in front of the traditional television—only two minutes per day.  The study also proved that individuals are still watching advertisements on television, assuaging some of the concerns of advertisers and television executives. The only real findings that strongly emphasized time shifting was that for DVR users, watching DVR-ed television was much more common than viewing live TV. This research gives a greater perspective on how audience members view content and how much they continue to consume.

This research is crucial in backing up my thesis because it shows actual proof that traditional television continues to be the dominant medium for television programming. The research also is key in debunking many of the common mistruths about Internet television consumption in terms of the amount of time spent watching the content and the individuals who watch it. These findings will strengthen my paper by giving me strong supporting facts of the television habits of the American public.

Levin, Gary. "Viewers' shifting habits redefine 'TV hit'; 'Gossip' speaks louder than ratings." USA Today 24 Oct 2007: Life; 1D.

This article discusses the case of several primetime television shows and how they have fared with time shifting, increasing audience members who DVR the show or watch online. This proves how the audience numbers watching television in different formats at diverse times is a reality and that the ratings need to evolve in order to take a more accurate look at the number of viewers. Levin discusses how these ratings systems are struggling to find a better way to measure an audience, especially since these numbers are for advertisers and often time shifting programming either makes ads irrelevant or skips them all together. Levin talks about other models of specific television shows and how they are pertinent to his argument. The CBS program Jericho is a great success story for online content because the 5.3 million episodes streamed online is what convinced the network to renew the fledgling show for a second season. NBC’s The Office, had a similar fate as its first season renewal was based on the ¼ DVR audience, the highest of any series. iTunes is another way that shows can get clout, as Levin argues having the number one iTunes selling television show is like a New York Times “Best Seller” label for a book. All of these new technologies are putting pressure on television to expand beyond its traditional format, but are also working in the networks’ favor because the frequent use is calling attention to ratings companies to change their strategies. The biggest question is—how can one monetize ratings for advertisers in these different formats? This is something which Levin ponders, along with what the best model for time-shifting is.

This article supports my thesis by showing that the majority of viewers still watch on traditional TV (only ¼ of The Office’s viewers time-shifted), while also recognizing that time and space shifting is something that television executives still need to be aware of. This article is also important to my thesis because it discusses the issues that the industry is facing in developing this new technology, especially in monetizing the novel content. Levin’s argument adds to my paper by discussing not only the negative effects that Internet TV has on the television industry, but also some positive ones, which brings a new element and interesting point of view to the debate.

    In a copyright infringement case, the judge ruled against the company Cablevision.  Customers were given a DVR remote to store television shows where “the hard drive itself was stored on Cablevision property.”  The courts decided that this made “Cablevision liable for reproducing and transmitting the programs without permission.” In other words, when Cablevision customers record television shows, no matter if they actually watch them or not (“buffer copies”), Cablevision is responsible for creating this “infringing copy.” Since all the saved programs are stored in Cablevision’s hard drive, the shows are then transmitted to the user after the broadcast, whenever they choose to watch their show.  Thus, officials are claiming that Cablevision “needs to manipulate signals in order to record the shows a user has selected” and, in essence, calling the company a “broadcast pirate.” The Cablevision case “does nothing to curb piracy”; if anything it “discourages innovation.” Also, it seems that Cablevision did nothing to actually infringe any copyright laws, which “center not on the details of the machinery, but on how the rights in a work are affected.” This is a major problem for the officials who deal with copyright laws.  If DVR and other recording techniques become so complicated and so afflicted with copyright laws, consumers may refuse to use them; thus, consumers would not be able to keep up with their favorite shows and probably never be willing to buy the DVD box sets later in life.  These copyright laws could negatively affect the market more so than DVRS (what they see to be the problem in this case) ever would have.

Consumers using Cablevision were not affecting how the works were used, the general market was in no way affected, and there was no copyright infringement.  Therefore, it seems that all this lawsuit did was enrage the public and prove that copyright laws are only “being used as a tool to scrape more money from wherever the studios can get some.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) petitioned to have “broadcast flags” placed in “all devices and receivers that are capable of receiving digital content. Such devices include, but are not limited to: televisions, computers, digital video-recorders (such as TiVo), and DVD players.” These flags are “a combination of technical specifications and federal regulations designed to combat unauthorized redistribution of content broadcast through digital television (DTV) signals.” Though the broadcast flags cannot prevent illegal distribution, they can stop consumers who purchase illegal copies from actually viewing the television show or movie that has been copied. However, individuals with older versions of specific devices “will still be able to receive and copy television programs in non-digital form.” Only devices and receivers that have transferred from analog to digital are capable of being flagged. The FCC made it clear that the institution of broadcast flags would not affect the current copyright law. Instead, officials “established [the flags as] a ‘technical protection measure’ that did not change the underlying ‘rights and remedies available to copyright holders.’” In the FCC’s official case against the American Library Association (ALA), the FCC was found to not have the power to implement broadcast flags in each individually owned device or receiver. Though this was the court’s decision, this judgment “did not address the imposition of the broadcast flag requirements in terms of copyright law.”

Though the broadcast flags would help stop viewers from watching illegal material, it would not prevent the production and distribution of television shows illegal put onto DVD. So while the FCC is trying to implement laws trying to “protect digital content,” pirates continue to mass-produce their goods. Television shows are still being illegally put onto DVDs, and others are still finding ways of watching classic, cancelled, or syndicated television shows in their original formats without paying for a DVD box set. While, the FCC had good intentions, they should instead focus their fight to the enforcement of copyright laws and try to be one step ahead of the pirates involved in reproducing television series.