The past and future of the TV cable box is at the center of a big war-of-words this week at the Federal Communications Commission. The fight has gotten scant press attention, but it’s a subject that’s fueling strong commentary from the likes of tech giants Google and Amazon and even dividing Hollywood. The MPAA is even going so far as to suggest that a proposal to revolutionize the TV device market would violate both the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Writers Guild disagrees.

Upon direction from Congress, the FCC is looking at new standards for “downloadable security” on set-top boxes. That might sound dry until one realizes that it has something to do with cable boxes currently costing the average household $231 a year, new cheaper devices such as Roku or Amazon’s FireTV entering the market, and the fact that Netflix, HBO, CBS and other programmers are delivering “over the top” services.

Who controls how television will be presented? Do consumers wants lots of apps to choose from? Or do they want more nimble devices? These are some of the big questions being considered by media regulators.

At the moment, there are two big proposals on the table to replace the expensive, rarely used security protocols that were established in the mid-90s when Congress allowed companies like TiVo to offer competing devices to standard cable boxes.

One is a hands-off approach favored by the cable industry and Hollywood studios. It would basically allow content operators to provide their own apps and user interfaces. Advocates for this proposal believe it will be flexible enough to accommodate different platforms.

But critics argue that it leaves cable companies and their partners with too much control and what’s needed are devices able to do a lot more.

“The MVPD’s app-based proposal falls short in this regard,” states a filing by Public Knowledge on Wednesday. “It takes the proprietary set-top box and transforms it into a proprietary app — hardly an improvement. Under the MVPD-supported approach, a third-party device would do nothing more than display a user interface and expose features entirely designed and controlled by the MVPD. No differentiation between devices would be possible.”

Instead, the second approach — called alternatively the “virtual head-end” proposal or the “competitive navigation” proposal — aims to force programming into a much simpler format so that the devices can construct varying user interfaces and implement features like wider searching of content upon discretion.

Cable companies and programmers worry what this would mean at a time when networks like ESPN, Fox, Showtime have developed their own apps. Would it be the end of bundling? And what about contracts addressing such subjects as channel placement, on-demand access, place- and time-shifting and cloud access?

“Third-parties could potentially seek to disassemble the programming, features, and functions offered over distribution services and selectively reassemble some of them for their own commercial exploitation,” states a filing by the MPAA on Thursday. “This could interfere with contracts, upset copyright law, and run afoul of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It would also impose significant costs, require the restructuring of networks, and necessitate standards yet to be developed.”

Not everyone is concerned that such an approach would constitute “compelled speech” or represent a taking of private property for public use without proper compensation. Not all have warned as Comcast did on Thursday the proposal would mean “leaving content vulnerable to piracy” and the creation of “a single, national point of attack vulnerable to hackers.”

For example, the Writers Guild of America acknowledged that its members have benefited from the MVPD system, but nevertheless nodded towards media consolidation and spoke about how it was “imperative” that third party devices not be tied down by the old system. The guild argued in favor of the more controversial approach favored by tech companies and consumer advocates. “We urge the Commission to carry out its legal mandate to create a competitive market and to resist industry pressure to eviscerate any reasonably effective regulations,” states the WGA’s filing. “The time to act is now.”

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Emotiv uses EEG signals to monitor emotions — including what audiences are feeling, in real time, about a movie or TV show.

Open Bionics creates low-cost 3-D printed bionic hands for amputees — including kids who can get “Iron Man,” “Star Wars” and “Frozen”-themed limbs.

Im Person is trying to pioneer “interactive storylines,” using artificial intelligence so fans can message their favorite characters, including Miss Piggy of “The Muppets.”

That was some of the technical wizardry on display as the Walt Disney Co. staged a demo day for its Disney Accelerator program, in which startups are paired with studio employees for a three-month immersive mentorship program.

The goal is for the start-ups to develop media and entertainment products, with the lure of collaboration with Disney on an array of ventures. All of the companies from this year have tie-ins in the works, according to Disney executives.

“The idea was that there are a lot of entrepreneurs out there, many of them are start-up companies which could have a great connection to all of our brands,” said Kevin Mayer, senior executive vice president and chief strategy officer of Disney. “It infects us with this great energy and some new perspective on things.”

The companies selected after an application process receive $20,000 upon acceptance, and then are offered an option to an additional $100,000 convertible debt note, which converts into equity at a discount to the price of the next funding. IP by a participating company is retained by that company.

“It is great to make money out of our investments, but the strategic benefit of bringing in all these entrepreneurs with all these new ideas and aligning them with our business units and seeing where we can take some of those ideas, that is the real benefit,” Mayer said.

This is the second year of the program, in which Disney is partnered with technology accelerator Techstars. An often-cited success story is that of a 2014 participant, Sphero, above, which last year was paired with Disney CEO Robert Iger as mentor. He saw application for their spherical robotics in the upcoming “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” with the Sphero technology used for the BB-8 droid and an official toy that went on sale last month.

At their demos, each of the CEOs gave short presentations.

Open Bionics CEO Joel Gibbard said that a problem with bionic hands has been in affordability and, for kids, the stigma as well. The idea of creating bionic hands tailored to Disney properties, he said, is to help make children “proud” to be wearing them. Disney provided a royalty free license for their contribution, such as the “Iron Man” hand and the “Star Wars Light Saber” hand, he said.

With its technology, Im Person CEO Erez Baum said that the company is tapping into the audience of 2 billion active messaging users worldwide. The “Miss Piggy Messaging Experience,” he said, will be featured on her Facebook page.

Tan Le, CEO of Emotiv, said that the company has just started selling wearable headsets that measure such things as stress, as well as applications that react to mental command. She declined to identify other Disney tie-ins than audience research, but at the end of her presentation gave a possible clue. “The force is with us and with Disney’s help we can awaken it,” she said.

Source: Variety

The world of independent film is a shaky one. With studios and distributors increasingly wary of a tumultuous market, securing funding for more outside-the-norm projects is precarious. Enter Kickstarter, the crowdfunding platform that has ventured into the film world, in a big way. Last month’s Toronto International Film Festival, for instance, featured a record five Kickstarter-funded movies (including the acclaimed Charlie Kaufman film, Anomalisa), while Oct. 15 will see the biggest ever Kickstarter Film Festival, which takes over 32 cinemas across the U.S. The Globe and Mail spoke with Kickstarter film lead Dan Schoenbrun about the company’s plans to change the film industry.

With Anomalisa, James White and River of Grass at this year’s TIFF, you guys made quite the footprint.

We’ve been around for six years now, and have had a pretty amazing showing at Sundance and other American festivals. But TIFF has been a tougher nut to crack because the festival is commonly showing more late-career, bigger-budgeted Hollywood films. But we’ve seen a steady increase every year. By far, this is our strongest showing.

Some of the films at TIFF are by more veteran filmmakers, though. I’m thinking of Charlie Kaufman’s Anomalisa, and Christopher Doyle’s Hong Kong Trilogy.

Yeah, we really are seeing all levels of filmmakers at all stages of their careers. But while there’s a pretty diverse range of voices, the unifying factor we’re finding is that all these filmmakers have an independent spirit – these are directors who are making work in their own way, and always have. There’s also a real desire to engage with the audience. They’re not just going to Kickstarter for financing, but for a more genuine, one-on-one relationship with the audience.

Is that something Kickstarter actively encourages? I mean, Kickstarter provides the obvious benefit of quick access to financing, but what other reasons should filmmakers turn to you?

It’s more than we actively encourage reaching out to audiences: it’s really essential to the process. Filmmakers who have success on Kickstarter have less to do with their name and recognizability and more to do with how passionate they are about having a relationship with their audience, their fans. You have to build transparency with your audience from the beginning. They want to know that they are helping this thing exist. If the goal is simply to put up a page and get money, you’re not going to succeed.

Do you go out and engage with recruiting filmmakers?

We are definitely members of the filmmaking community. There are hundreds of film projects on the site right now. But we’re not going out to who can raise the most money, but who are the great artistic voices who can find this an empowering tool. We don’t think in terms of sales, but more so, hey, we really want to work with Charlie Kaufman, what can we do to make that happen? We’re trying to connect with filmmakers and artists who are doing great things outside of the mainstream.

How much of Kickstarter’s model and this new model of film financing has to do with what’s going on in the major studio system? Are you seeing ripple effects here from studios being more franchise-happy, and more tightfisted when it comes to other projects?

I don’t think too much about causality of the studio system trickling down. It’s not a new model we’re working with, the patronage model. This sort of direct crowd-initiative way of supporting artists they believe in has been around for centuries. The Internet has helped it become more user-friendly, sure. Kickstarter isn’t replacing the studio system, just supplementing. We’re not trying to become a producer or a distributor or anything like that.

Source: Globe & Mail