What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept
Jack Valenti ran the MPAA for an astounding 38 years, and was an amazingly effective lobbyist. Listening to pretty much anyone talk about the job he did -- whether they were on his side or opposed him -- you hear nothing but admiration for his skills as a lobbyist. Of course, he was wrong about almost everything, pointed the movie industry in the wrong direction multiple times, and did a lot more harm than good. He claimed that the VCR would kill the movie industry. He insisted that fair use does not exist. He practically ruined a bunch of movie awards shows by forbidding studios from sending out DVD screeners to the awards judges, since he was afraid they'd put them online. And, of course, he insisted that file sharing was terrorism designed to kill the industry (just like the VCR, obviously).Still... he was a media and Congressional darling and could talk a great game. Amazingly, when confronted with his "Boston Strangler" comment years later, he actually had the gall to insist he was right about his comments on the VCR -- even as the industry was making more than 50% of its revenue on video sales and rentals.
Given all that, you had to imagine that his successor, Dan Glickman would have tough shoes to fill. And, indeed, to date about all that Glickman has done is repeat the same ridiculous claims as Valenti, but without the colorful and charming language. We've been hearing rumors for a while that the movie studios have been quite upset about Glickman, and may even look to push him out before his deal is up next year. Greg Sandoval, over at News.com is apparently hearing the same thing, and notes that the studios recently pushed the MPAA to totally revamp its antipiracy operations, upset about the way things had been handled.
Now, if you were hoping this meant that it was going to take a more reasonable stance to online file sharing and new distribution methods... you'd be wrong. Apparently, the complaint is that the MPAA hasn't done enough, because file sharing has only become more of an issue. It would appear that the studio folks don't seem to realize that this is inevitable. The answer isn't to demonize it, but to look for ways to take advantage of it. But, that's not what they've done. They've put new folks in charge and decided to stop calling it the "antipiracy" operation. Instead, it's the "content protection" effort. Both are absolutely the wrong way to look at things. If they're looking to protect the unprotectable, they are going to fail. Instead, they should be setting up a group that looks at how to use these new technologies to their advantage, rather than setting up a division that pretends it can stop the constant tide of progress.
We've been hearing from more and more movie makers who are recognizing how treating their fans right, while giving them a reason to buy is a much more effective means of reaching an audience than starting off on the assumption that everyone is a criminal. The movie business has always been based on selling ancillary products. Marshall Loew recognized this years ago, when he said: "We sell tickets to theatres, not movies." Yet, for years, the industry has done everything it can to treat its biggest fans like criminals. FBI warnings about punishment before movies. Searching people as they enter a theater and demanding they leave their cameraphones outside. Making the theater going experience less enjoyable. The reason the industry has faced problems isn't "piracy" but because the studios themselves never learned to treat customers right. Setting up a "content protection" division is like setting up a "performance limiting" group at a car company, or a "picture scrambling" group at a TV company. It's about purposely limiting what the technology allows and what consumers want. It makes no sense at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content protection, dan glickman, jack valenti, movie industry, movie studios, piracy
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Step 2: ???
Step 3: PROFIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 2: Shill.
Step 3: Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 2: ???
Step 3: look like a moron
Step 4: rinse, repeat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*eats donut*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA: Spokespeople for dead people
Valenti's ideas were probably needed back in the day, but until someone digs him up, his ideology needs to stay in the ground with him. It's a new day, and someone else needs to figure out how to work with the technology.
His ideas today are like "The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637". They simply don't come close to fitting the economic, technological, global or cultural reality of today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA: Spokespeople for dead people
No, he lobbied congress to extend his lifetime by another twenty years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
knock-on effect
I used to work in theatre, but stopped doing so - not because I'm not good at the job I did (lots of great reviews to back that up) but because I found the working environment became poisonous due to the consistent disrespect I was facing from the people who were supposed to be there to serve my needs: the theatres themselves and the technicians who were supposed to turn my lights on and off. Consequently, I have stopped going to the theatre much, so this was my first time in a year, and I only went because I design the website for the company that was performing (which had given me a comp ticket).
After multiple attempts to find out how to collect my comps (which required 4 phone calls) I went to the theatre in Toronto to collect my ticket. It turns out I was supposed to get my ticket at the main theatre box office, so I went there and joined a line of paying customers.
Directly in front of me in line was a man who was volunteering for the festival. He was trying to get the comps he had been told he would get for his work as a volunteer. The man issuing the tickets was looking at his volunteer pass, and was asking him to provide some other kind of ID, which the volunteer said he did not have, and that he was not aware he needed.
Suddenly, the box-office staff member reached through the hole in the ticket-window and grabbed the volunteer's passes, saying loudly "You are trying to cheat us!" and a tug of war ensued. The patrons in the line up started to grumble to each other, and the volunteer and box-office staff member had a tug of war. The volunteer started shouting "let go, let go!" and eventually pried his pass away from the box-office staff. Obviously distraught and at a complete loss at what to do, the volunteer staggered away from the ticket window while all three box-office staff behind it glared at him.
Now standing next to me, the volunteer asked "How the hell did I deserve that?"
I replied - loudly so that the rest of the line and the box-office staff could hear me - "Don't worry fella. It's not your fault. There's a reason that jackass did that - he's a "theatre professional".
Everyone in the line-up looked completely shocked at all this, but what I said drew a giggle from one or two folks. I stepped up to the same window, and said to the guy who had abused the volunteer "Hi. I'm here to collect my comp. I'm the web designer for the theatre company that's performing, so if you pull that shit with me, I'll make sure that what you just did turns up on their website. Now please, may I have the ticket that THEY put aside for me?"
So - MPAA take note. Keep it up, and pretty soon you'll find that fewer and fewer people will want to make films, participate in their making, or even want to see them. After all - who wants to participate in an art form if the only way to do so is at great expense of by having to make threats. And any theatre people reading this might want to take note too - because if there was ever a dying art form with a dwindling audience (at least those who are not part of your club), it's contemporary theatre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: knock-on effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i got an idea
2) Work to distribute movies digitally, remove over exerting DRM, allow users to plug in their own password and easily stream movie on 3-5 devices
3) Start selling movies digitally, test out non DRM digital streams on older less profitable movies
4) start selling all movies digitally and reap profits with realistic prices.
No more of oh we cut our distribution chain but we want more profits crap. Change digital movie prices with DRM to half that of traditional DVDs, give people an incentive to buy movies they want legally rather than bend them over to let them know you are screwing them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i got an idea
There is exactly one problem with that: The great masses don't want to be limited in any way ever. They want unlimited use, unlimited formats, unlimited sharing, unlimited copies, and unlimited and unmonitored use. They want to pay a minimal license fee, and then get to use movies and music as if they own the thing outright, not just the rights to their copy.
The reasons that companies are not in a rush to get to digital delivery is that they know they next step after delivery is "upload to the pirate bay". make one sale, lose hundreds more.
In the end, the pirates and whiners will end up with less and less product to work with, as producing the product will be more expensive than the return on selling it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
key phrase
Isn't this their present day standard operating practice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
The only problem I see is the inability of entertainment companies to make money where the market is. This is a great deal for them. I do all the work, I download a file and then burn it to a blank if I want to use it away from my computer. If I want to listen to a cd or watch a downloaded movie I even provide the media. I don't see how it costs them a dime. I paid for it with Internet and Media costs.
Also I will state that I am old and disabled with very limited income. If I didn't download it I would simply wait until the product was available on Television or Radio. In other words I wouldn't have bought it because $20.00 is a weeks worth of food and contrary to popular belief most of us would rather eat.
My ISP advertises on TV and Radio and Internet about their blazing download speeds. That is the crux of their marketing and I bought it. They told me I could download Music and Videos much faster and that's what I paid for.
Who's the bad guy here?? I don't see one. I'm just consuming what I paid for. If they want more money then they need to negotiate and charge for it.
I see lot's of missed opportunities for the entertainment industry. Instead I see a public relations nightmare for the entertainment companies. Who can support an industry that make hundreds of billions of dollars and sues a person over a $20.00 product. This does not promote any kind of loyalty or even the desire to buy their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
I don't look at it as breaking a law. I bought a house, and while walking around my block , I found a drug dealer that allows me to smoke meth. What's the problem???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
My family and I are in greatly reduced circumstances compared to where we were 18 months ago, and we do without the things we can't afford. That includes cable TV, and I've seen exactly one movie in the theaters in the last 12 months. A Netflix account, a low-priced DSL line, a library card to borrow music CDs and movies is our family's new entertainment budget. Do I like this new life? Not at all. But what I don't have is your attitude about the world owing me something. Some of my family's current circumstances are entirely my fault, for some bad life choices. If you're old and poor, that's your fault, just as being young and poor is mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
Many Americans are feeling the same pinch you are. The government won't mandate that HBO should suddenly be free, nor will they be sending out free movie tickets. Entertainment isn't a right.
As for the person before you, if you want until the product is available on the TV you can afford, that isn't an issue. You are paying for it with your time and attention to the advertising, which in turn may affect where your food budget is spent, or what you buy with it. Not all payment is monetary, at least not directly. Advertisers buy your eyeballs for 30 seconds at a time, effectively giving you free TV as a result. The bill is paid, enjoy it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood
I will simply take your content for free forever. Never paying you again......ever. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Industry Size
So why should the government listen to the movie industry when they are not THE major employer or tax revenue generator? Google's business model seems to work which is "connect your customers to an enjoyable experience." And then being acutely aware of what that "enjoyable experience" is for each individual. Hence the big hullabaloo about the technologies that learn about Individuals interests, because you can't give them an "enjoyable experience" without knowing that information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want?" How about any retail store that has the nuts to actually charge money, or actually stop shoplifting, etc?
What about the police that stop you from speeding? How about those damn night clubs that make you PAY for booze?
This isn't the socialist republic of Mike, wake up!
As the early AC mentioned, what a strawman post this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try with libertarian next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is real hard to come up with an idea...
1. Sell Theater 'memberships' - allowing free movies all month for a membership fee. Like 'cinema Netflix' for example - or a cable bill, to liken it.
2. Sell Concessions at a reasonable level - so I don't just go get pretty much as much of whatever I want before hand - because even a nice restaurant and lots of food is cheaper than concessions. Ir just partner with some chain restaurants, etc..
3. Profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) Screening at the door:
- no body cavity search
- no xrays
- no "see thru clothing"
- no pat down
2) during the movie:
- no ultraviolet or infrared flooding of the theater
- no filming of the audience
- no subliminal cuts (even though they do not work)
This list is just a few of things to not do to your customers. After these are implemented, the theater might think about making the customer happy about their theater experience rather than involving nightmares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clowns
Now, where's me friggin'balloon?
Like I said, clowns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll have to point out, Mike, that he was correct in his comment. You can find women home alone today in Boston, meaning that the Boston strangler did not manage to stop/prevent women from being able to stay alone at home. Similarly, the VCR failed to destroy the movie industry. So, he was right in a sense. Though probably not in the way he wanted to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give us something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profit is not a right either. It too is a privilege. It seems everyone feels entitled these days, regardless of which side of the fence they're on.
"Advertisers buy your eyeballs for 30 seconds at a time, effectively giving you free TV as a result. The bill is paid, enjoy it"
You're joking, right? My cable bill costs a small fortune and all I get from it is television channels, nothing else. What do I get for the privilege of paying all that money every month? Ads, ads, and more ads. Trying to change the channel during an ad is pointless too as all I'll find are yet even more ads. I once tried ten channels in a row in order to avoid watching an ad during a show. Every single one was playing an ad. Children these days can identify a hundred times more company logos than states on a map. Sorry if I sound like I'm beginning to lose my mind, but can you blame me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are entitled only to the same thing that you and I wish for: RESPECT. Sadly we are in Generation Disrespect right now, where nobody seems to give a crap about anyone else's rights and freedoms. They just want to stuff their face with an all you can eat buffet of stuff obtained without payment.
hildren these days can identify a hundred times more company logos than states on a map.
If parents made them see the state names more often and the logos less often, things would change. Don't blame anyone else except the parents who don't seem to give a crap what happens with their kids anyore. BTW, exposure is key here, how many kids travel every day over state lines? How many of them drive past Mickey D's every day? Your stat is meaningless, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And how does this not apply to consumers? Why am I paying $15 for a CD when I can pay $10 for a stack of 100 blank CDs, and burn off the equivalent of 100 music albums at near-free costs?
When the consumer knows that a product can be sold cheaper, knows that it is being manufactured at minimal costs, and that the manufacturing costs could be EVEN LOWER, they are perfectly entitled to feel ripped off.
And what people like you need to realize: When a business is purely consumer based, it's the consumers that get the final say. When alternatives appear, the consumer has the right to go to them. That's what a free market is.
And don't give me crap about "production costs don't reflect development costs". When I buy a brand new car, I'm not paying for the millions of dollars spent in R&D, I'm paying for the production and labour costs for that one car. If you can't recoup the costs of development through sales, don't do the development. That's also what the free market is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are free to listen to your blank discs all you like. However, if you want music on them, well...
You have two choices:
1) pay the entire production costs, all of the salaries, and all of the equipment costs relative to producing the album you really love, or
2) pay $15 and get your copy.
Of course, if you have no morals, you can "borrow" a copy off of the pirate bay for "evaluation". But that would require that you don't mind operating like a common criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like how you simultaneously manage to defend movie and music companies with a constantly false analogy (hint: copyright infringement != theft) AND make the most hilariously ironic and ignorant statement I've seen in awhile.
Whining about disrespect while defending corporations that routinely treat ALL their customers like criminals, bribe governments for the ability to restrict the rights of citizens, and abuse the law to their own benefit is just...
...wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The damage has already been done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where can I do this?
Because when dam gives way and water is pouring freely downhill, a smart man puts up a mill.
But it takes a dumb-ass to build a business based on a lake at the top of the hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Rip Us Off and You Love It!
I'll use 'Couples Retreat' as an example - They wasted $60Million on making questionable entertainment and shoved it down everyones throats. Profit-wise they're likely to make something like $40Million on 2 years worth of lame. Don't say 'people have to get paid' that's covered in the production costs, $40Million is pure cream on top.
Now if I worked flat out for 2 years contributing to society in a meaningful way, I'd be lucky to make $150,000 and I'd be bloody happy with it.
If they charged even 50% of the current Theatre, DVD and Merch prices and only took $20Million profit they'd STILL be earning too much and we'd STILL be over-paying.
Now you stop forcing us to pay too much for impractical and questionable entertainment and we'll stop checking it out online before parting with the money we actually worked hard to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No subject.
In keeping up with SOC, I find it laughable the industry's trying to go this way. First, it'll be movies. Then, TV shows, circumventing the Betamax ruling.
It's disgusting this industry wants to go this route and little do they realize smart people, like myself, are refusing to buy any of their wares due to this stupidity.
The Comcast/Time Warner deal to offer movies is just as lame, especially given both charge for a digital rental at a higher price for a single day.
Who really are the pirates here? I dare anyone in the entertainment industry to convince me these tactics aren't comparable to real pirates, who board vessels and overtake control, usually at the sacrifice of innocent people.
Idiots. The lot of them. People, quit buying movies. Quit downloading movies. Ignore the damn industry completely.
Then, let's watch them squirm with dropping revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have an idea
Also how about offering digital copies with all dvds instead of making a digital copy something that costs $5 extra which should just be free. Not even added value but if you own a movie you should own that movie no matter which screen you want to watch it on based on the quality edition that was purchased.
I know I went to far. I found a model that might actually make sense for the movie industry. I bet they call me some nasty names in the near future. Shame on me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]