Lawyers and Technolgy
Media companies and their Lawyers are frustrated with the never-ending flow of technologies. Tablet device and Internet enabled TV are the most recent addition to the mix that mess up all the strict content rights that they traditionally held dear and made Program License agreement with. In the good old days
"Digital Media" mostly dealt with VOD, which was split between Free, Paid or Subscription all that Website stuff was just needed for marketing but didn't really ever make money.
The digital Rights were then awkwardly broken down by technology type and delivery type: Mobile, broadband, IPTV, Streaming or Download to Own (DTO)
Personally I was always confused between the IPTV, broadband and streaming since they technically could be the same (even more confusing "VOD" is potentially controlled by different departments in different media companies: AVOD streaming might be controlled by Digital Media, while DTO is controlled by home video, while any SVOD service is controlled by affiliate departments... mobile could fall under any of the 3 departments as well or a 4th) DTO was always the most straight forward, but the most limited since it is viewed as a DVD substitute, while VOD for subscription services on TV was always the most lucrative and straight forward.
The newest challenge is the wifi/mobile hybrid of Tablet cps which challenge the mobile and broadband/IPTV distinction. Currently in our deals we distinguish between content accessible through wifi on tablet (IPTV right) or through 3G (a mobile right) and change the content offering depending on the connection.
Internet TV's have been particularly a problem to Media companies that are dependent on cable, since the whole lexicon of rights are designed so none of the content ended up on the TV itself - therefore competing with the core cable channel offerings. Originally, we got a straight "no" on any TV apps, then okay out the US, then okay as long as it doesn't have video and now, as long as the Cable companies are happy with it.
The real fear is a Netflix type service they we forgot about. For example, Maxdome, a german IPTV rental service, we granted broad band, IPTV or streaming rights in older contracts, and we told they could not exploit that right to put our content within their TV apps? (our lawyers restricted the original contract content use by device type, something i know other media companies did not)
All very Fun. So now we have contracts that grant the above rights by device type, model and name, and all possible permutations. The head of our entire International department lamented in a particular long JV contract review, that 90% of the meeting had been about digital rights while they only represent 1% of his rev.
The law is in a desperate race to understand and regulate technology, but it always feels so late at the game they we spend so much time messaging language to meet perceived and imagined threats.
(Regional Internet cookies and advertising laws are equally confusing, since if you ever tried to do an international campaign you come to the quick realization that no bodies agrees on anything across country boarders.)