There's An Entire Conference About Trying To 'Protect' Content?

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Tue, Nov 30th 2010 2:48pm — Mike Masnick

It's been sort of amusing over the past few years to watch the entertainment and media worlds focus increasingly on the idea that they need to "protect" content in some way, as if (a) that's possible or (b) desirable. It is neither. At this point, it should be clear that there is no realistic way to "protect" content. The debunking of DRM has gone on for many years, and I don't think we need to contribute any further to that discussion. But, more importantly, even if it were possible, I would argue that it is not a good idea. The opportunities for smart business models going forward are in enabling people to do more with your content. That is, it's in using the content to create greater and greater value -- and then setting up business models that allow you to capture some of that increased value.

So, I find it rather amusing to see (via Sheri Candler) that there's an entire conference that's been created called The Content Protection Summit. To me, that reads something like the "Rotary Phone Preservation Society" or the "Committee To Restore Butter Churns." It's a historical anachronism that is no longer needed.

Thankfully, the Summit organizers claim that the event will not discuss policy/lobbying efforts, but instead will be a working session to "establish a 'framework'" for the industry. A framework for what? The organizers are vague in a way that suggests even they're not sure. Note the massive overuse of "quotation marks" around everything (the organizers might want to check out the "blog" of "unnecessary" quotation marks for guidance):

This is not a "singular event", but rather the establishment of a "framework" through which industry leaders can identify top issues facing the industry, discuss them from all angles and aspects, and work collaboratively on ways to resolve or otherwise reduce/mitigate them through topic-based "working teams".
Most conferences focus on facilitating two things: "issue awareness" and "social networking". This summit instead focuses specifically on creating the framework to WORK and RESOLVE these issues. As top leaders in the industry with far too much to do, we do not need yet "another conference", but instead need a forum for actually working and resolving the top issues facing us.
Recognizes the common issues facing the entire "Entertainment Industry (movies + tv + music + games + software + publishing) versus individual industry segments or elements.
Fills an industry "gap", as there is no continual working forum for these issues. There are individual conferences or parts of events, but nothing that is industry-wide with a singular purpose.

Since they're so big on quotation marks, I'll admit that reading this list makes it sound suspiciously like the event is about "collusion," as each set of quotations marks makes me assume that the word or phrase is a euphemism of sorts, and the only one that seems to fit is collusion. Of course, the industry has tried to work together on DRM in the past and it's failed time and time again, so I'm not sure how getting folks together for another shot at a really bad business model does anything other than get the hopes up for those who haven't realized that they're chasing an obsolete dream, rather than embracing new opportunities.

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: business models, conferences, protection

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 2:56pm

Or rather...
There's pretty big money to be made in running a conference/convention. ("Con" for short). It barely matters what it's about--only that there's enough people to fill out the available space and pay for the privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re: Or rather...
  Not to mention the money to be made by DRM companies interested in exploiting paranoid content creators. "oh yes, everyone wants to steal your content and put you out of business. Oh, I understand that no one likes DRM, but OUR product isn't DRM! It's a robust content protection system, guaranteed to work under all circumstances, as defined by us!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re: Or rather...
  Lobo you gave me a great idea of how to suck a ton of money out of these idiots. Charge an ungodly amount of money for a con. Then lets set up a standards commitee for each of the methods we lead people to believe will work to DRM content. Charge them for lobbying. Plus lets charge them a membership fee. Then suck them dry knowing their businesses are going to fail. Great idea huh ....
  
  Oh wait! thats already been done by RIAA and the MPAA.
  
  Never mind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:11pm

creating the framework to WORK and RESOLVE these issues.

LoL

I know the "solution" they will adopt is called "more DRM", "more laws", "more enforcement" which all failed miserably till now and will continue to do so because they don't understand what they are up against.

So we are clear the industry will never win, as the control of the money is in the hands of the very people they call thieves. Those "thieves" can and will find alternatives legal or otherwise to fulfill their needs and will give nothing to antagonist, aggressive fools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 1 Dec 2010 @ 1:23am
  
  Re:
  mmm, before you shit there, it would behoove you to remember that tech owes more than a little bit of their success to the creative content that they were never capable of from day one.
  
  It's hardly shocking that artists aren't a little worried about giving up their future to the nerds that didn't understand them in high school...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude seriously have you seem the latests games?
    
    They are cinematic epic adventures, sci-fi, drama, horror interactive movies, some even let you produce your own music and almost all of them have many endings with scenic animations.
    
    Besides tech grew because people wanted to film their own daily lifes and show it to others and it continues today with Vimeo, Youtube, podcasts, blogging, tweeting and etc, the interwebs don't need content because the people is the content, information is the content.
    
    You think people buy a camera to play music on it, to read with it?
    
    You think people buy computers just to play movies and listen to music? are you a crazy?
    
    Entertainment is part of the reason but is far from being the biggest driver for tech and the fact that you don't understand that just show how ignorant of that market you are.
    
    I didn't buy a computer to rip music or watch movies I did because I like programming, I like robotics, I like emulations I like simulations, things you cannot provide me with your "precious" content, you are not the sun of my life dude get over it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zacqary Adam Green (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:24pm

Like it or not, I'm sure this conference will be very "productive" and "set" many "long-lasting" "precedents."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:44pm

They would be better off holding a conference to build a working time machine and go back to their precious '80s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re:
  Before they go we could sell them all those parachute pants and platform shoes that didnt sell in the 80s ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:48pm

The summit organizer is going proclaim the guests morons, explain why (see above), and then chubbawack them as they leave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:50pm

What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
"chasing an obsolete dream, rather than embracing new opportunities" -- What they've got now is bringing them income. Industry should just throw all that aside and embrace the MIKE FREE model, eh? You'd better inform these folks that you have a solution that will rid them of *their current income*.

(Sigh.) I'm just going to enter techdirt.com into my hosts file so I don't even waste time jabbing at such an impractical scheme as FREE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TDR, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:53pm
  
  Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
  You've been commenting here for how long, now? And you still don't get it. You only operate from the conclusion that you decided on before you ever started reading here, and you allow that to color everything you see and say. Stow the bias and see what's really being said here, not what you want to think is being said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Mike Masnick, 1 Dec 2010 @ 3:50am
    
    Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
    What are you talking about? Why are you so confused? I have no idea what you mean about a bias here in favor of piracy. I buy all my music, that's why all these people here that admit pirating music love my blog. I'm trying to help musicians make money; despite the fact I run to the defense of websites that rip them off as quickly as possible. I'm not pro-piracy at all, despite every indication on every thing I write every day indicating that I'm 100% for piracy. You must be confused.
    
    And oh yeah, I'm not a sociopath either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz, 1 Dec 2010 @ 8:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
      Is it just me or do the industry shills that keep posting here have an agenda of labeling TechDirt as "pro-piracy" via the comments?
      
      Perhaps TechDirt is in the sights for a domain name seizure?
      
      They must be thinking: "Damn, we can't have the sheeple having rational discussions about what our industry is doing. They simply need to listen to what we say, stop thinking and hand over their wallets."
      
      I think I will add TechDirt to my hosts file just in case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steven (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:58pm
  
  Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
  Yes, because free has never worked as part of a business model.
  
  NEVER!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
  Oh, you mean the model of using the RADIO to give away music for FREE and make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
  
  And everyone know's Music Videos are worthless, right? I mean, those are entirely free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 30 Nov 2010 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
    Yes, radio is really free, except when you listen to the radio you also listen to adds, promotions etc.
    
    Who do you think pays the radio station to play music ? thats right all those people who pay for advertising on the radio (or tv).
    
    So when you go to Macdonalds and get a burger, you are paying to listen to the radio. (maccas pays the radio station for you, then they take that money off you when you purchase their products).
    
    Sure you can say "well I will not buy their products", then you would have to buy products that were not advertised.. how are you going to find them ?
    
    When you google search, do you think that is free as well ?
    
    Or do you understand that businesses and companies PAY google, they pay google, and charge that cost to YOU..
    
    Everything you buy, pays for your radio, your TV, your google and so on.
    
    Where do you think the million of DOLLARS you talk about comes from ?
    Why do you think the radio station also does not pay royalties to play popular songs, so when you listen to the radio, (or not), but especially when you purchase ANYTHING you are paying the artist, the radio station, and the advertisers.. You get to pay everyone, and you think its free..
    
    The computer you are using probably cost's $300 or more that it would be if it were not for the expense in promotion of a product.
    
    Im amazed that people think google, TV, radio is "free", its prepaid, you have allready paid all stakeholders to listen to that "free" content..
    
    Its not free, its not free to you, its not free to me, its not even free to me if I choose not to listen to it.
    
    If I buy any product that has been advertised on radio or TV I have allready paid for that content.. and so have you..
    
    Maybe you should get Mike to explain it for you, or maybe you should ring your local radio station and ask how much it cost to place an add.
    
    But you (sorry to say) are a fool if you think radio or TV is 'free'.
    
    So what happens to all those people who pay for advertising, and charge you for it, find that there advertising is not longer working, they have fixed advertising costs, but are moving less product, so each unit of the product will cost more for everyone.
    
    So illegal content stealing is hurting the entire community, and society.. but what the hell as long as you can score some free stuff, and screw the creator of that work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
      Crazy ranting helps artists get paid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
      I think you misunderstand...
      
      "Free" is not the same as "makes money". Radio IS free, to the people who listen to it. You don't get charged. That means free. Yes, they make the money in other ways, like advertising. Do you know what that's called? It's called using free as part of a business model - as in, exactly what you are arguing against.
      
      TV. Radio. Google. I get them all for free and yet they all make money - funny how that works, hmm?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 1 Dec 2010 @ 1:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        Yes, all art now brought to you by advertising.
        
        That's real progress there, guy.
        
        Spoken like every person that knows zero about art...
        
        Good luck with your quest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        Why is it so difficult for people to understand that advertising is a long, long way from being the only way to make money other than charging up front?
        
        I'm always amazed at the sheer lack of imagination that so called "artists" have in this area. Maybe that's why so many are struggling? The art can't be worth much if the creator totally lacks imagination, after all...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        ...or live performances and merch like in the ol'days.
        
        Go work some for a change.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        You don't like ad revenue don't use it, go to Kickstarter and do what Neil Gaiman did and ask people to fund you.
        
        Don't want to do that, do a live presentation of your art. What that is not good enough?
        
        Well dude then you are not looking to work, you are looking for an easy way to go through life, you are a social parasite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        No, friend, art will be brought to you by artists. Artists and their constant urge to create. As always.
        
        And those artists will make money, because people are happy and eager to support them. People will pay to see their work in person - be it a concert or an exhibit - people will pay to hear them speak, to meet them, to have merchandise expressing their love for them, to have unique mementos of their fandom.
        
        I'm not worried about art at all. If your fear is that humanity is somehow going to stop creating quality art, I think you can relax - we've been at it for 60,000 years or so with no sign of stopping.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
      "Everything you buy, pays for your radio, your TV, your google and so on."
      
      Now the question everybody want to ask.
      
      Why then I need to pay again if I already paid for it once?
      
      Who is cheating others the consumer that pays multiple times or people like you that want to triple charge everything?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
      "So illegal content stealing is hurting the entire community, and society.. but what the hell as long as you can score some free stuff, and screw the creator of that work."
      
      How exactly?
      
      People pay for it when they go to the gym, they pay when they go to the restaurant, they pay when they go to the mall, they pay when they watch TV, they pay when they listen to radio, they pay everything everyday and you are saying people are not getting paid?
      
      Well talk to your manager because it is not because people are not paying. They paid a thousand times over.
      
      Besides musicians have live gigs and merch to fall back, TV is ad based so it is paid for, movies are selling well no signs of reduced returns and you are saying people don't pay?
      
      Come on you can do better than that can't you mate?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 1 Dec 2010 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        Are you an actual artist or creator?
        
        No?
        
        Are you a leech?
        
        Probably.
        
        So the merit of your opinion will be judged with that in mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        Does it matter when is I who holds the money and you is the one wanting it?
        
        Now bend over dude or I will give you nothing.
        
        See how simple life is?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        Leech?
        
        And you still think you deserve money from me right?
        
        Yay, we leeches will give you money because you are so cool dude, I can't help myself and give everything to you.
        
        You are so fantastic you don't need to work you just wave your magic wand and I will give you money.
        
        LoL
        
        In your dreams pal, keep dreaming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
        I'm both! So how does one judge me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
  What they've got now is bringing them income. Industry should just throw all that aside and embrace the MIKE FREE model, eh?
  
  No business model lasts forever. It's better to start looking for new models now than propping up the old ones well past their expiration dates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
  "What they've got now is bringing them income. Industry should just throw all that aside and embrace Henry Ford's model, eh? You'd better inform these folks that you have a solution that will rid them of *their current income*."
  - Wagon Makers, c. 1890s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eugene (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:38pm
    
    Re: Re: What's obsolete about getting people to pay for entertainment?
    Which isn't to say Mike is Henry Ford, but then, Henry Ford didn't exactly invent the automobile industry either, it was just the most recognizable name at hand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 10:33pm
  
  About time!
  Good Riddance!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:51pm

The opportunities for smart business models going forward are in enabling people to do more with your content.

I agree with you Mike, but I'm wondering how you would apply that to something like an MMO. Just curious. And how one would go about creating a copyright-free MMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steven (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re:
  An MMO is an easy one, and one that has been highlighted on Techdirt before. The business model is pretty simple, give away the non-scarce good; the software, and charge for the scarce goods; server time, account storage, in game items...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Invisible Hand (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There are already some that do this. The game is free to download and has absolutely no restriction. However, you can pay real money to buy special items, stats increases, etc... (usually those special items don't have a big impact on gameplay, it's mostly cosmetic).
    
    Don't know how successful the model is, but I played one (FLYFF or something), and it sure had plenty of players...and many of them had those "special items", so I believe they were doing well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Freak, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you want examples, I'm on about a dozen different mailing lists for sites which translate korean/chinese MOG's (Multi-player Online Game . . . much a better title, I think), into english.
      
      Most of them follow that model. I've run across a few which instead inject ads into the gamespace. It's actually more neat than intrusive to see a 'billboard' advertising pepsi inside of the game.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Don't know how successful the model is
      
      www.runescape.com
      
      Pretty darn successful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aerilus, 30 Nov 2010 @ 5:36pm
  
  Re:
  Lord of the rings online
  or knights online for that matter
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:52pm

I just read on CNN the Neil Gaiman is using Kickstarter to fund his little project.

On another note some other project in there got half a million bucks wow!

In other news some Youtube celebrities that nobody knows about are making 6 figures in income, not bad for people who use off the shelf cameras and software.

First was the music industry now "amateurs" will rock the TV and Movie world by creating new legal alternatives, I'm sorry for the poor executives...no I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 30 Nov 2010 @ 3:57pm

They have to protect - because people are willing to steal.
It's been sort of amusing over the past few years to watch the entertainment and media worlds focus increasingly on the idea that they need to "protect" content in some way, as if (a) that's possible or (b) desirable.

Ofcourse it is possible, and desirable to protect your assets..

They allready to provide levels of protection its called the law, ethics, morals and copyright.

Ofcourse, there will always be people willing to break the law, to get around protection systems.
The morally corrupt people that is, who think they have a right to something, just because they want it.

So ofcourse, they can proptect their content, and they DO protect their content.

And there will always be a number of people who will seek to cheat, steal, or gain something without having to pay for it.

You are never going to stop people speeding when they drive, but you can put up a speed limit, educate people about speeding, employ police to catch those that dont obey the rules.

And take away the right to drive if they repeat offend.

Ofcourse there is a need to protectm, it would be anarchy if that were not the case.

This sounds like your normal defeatist attitude Mike, if you cant stop 100% of illegal file sharing, you are saying they (again) should not even try.

After all the crims are allways going to find a way, maybe so, but so are the people te crims are targetting.

And the crims usually dont win.. these kinds of things.

(ie TPB)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: They have to protect - because people are willing to steal.
  Software piracy has been fought for 30 years now what do they have to show for it?
  
  Music piracy has been fought for over 20 years now what do they have to show for it?
  
  Video piracy has been fought for over 20 years now what do they have to show for it?
  
  We need more decades to show it doesn't work?
  
  Now all that protection emphasis brought new alternatives, legal ones, Software got opensource, music got Jamendo and TV and movies are starting to see some competition like VODO, YouTube and other players.
  
  I'm starting see a pattern here, the more some country tries to "protect" their big players the more other countries inch past them because to "protect" those players leads inevitably to constraints in other industries which leads to less innovation output from them all in the big picture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - darryl, 30 Nov 2010 @ 9:02pm
    
    Re: Re: They have to protect - because people are willing to steal.
    Software piracy has been fought for 30 years now what do they have to show for it?
    
    Music piracy has been fought for over 20 years now what do they have to show for it?
    
    Video piracy has been fought for over 20 years now what do they have to show for it?
    
    We need more decades to show it doesn't work?
    
    what do we have to show for it?
    
    A MASSIVE software industry, creating a vast array of products and functions that has changed the way the world woks.
    
    A MASSIVE music industry, MTV and music production companies.
    
    A massive movie industry, multi-million dollar movies.
    
    Ofcourse, you can say these industries do not work, but you would be wrong :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Modplan (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 9:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They have to protect - because people are willing to steal.
      So you're saying I wouldn't be able to get Photoshop and Lady Gaga's album thanks to DRM that has made these industries so big and powerful?
      
      Then why exactly do we need stronger laws if what they've already been doing has worked so well?
      
      Darryl, clueless whenever he disproves himself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 9:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They have to protect - because people are willing to steal.
      Now answer the question:
      
      "Everything you buy, pays for your radio, your TV, your google and so on."
      
      Why then I need to pay again if I already paid for it once?
      
      Who is cheating others the consumer that pays multiple times or people like you that want to triple charge everything?
      
      Or are you going to run scared?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xander C (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:04pm

I'm calling it, this Con will have the worst Cos-play ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:06pm

My uncle has a barn...
Hey, maybe we could put on a conference about trying to 'protect' Speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: My uncle has a barn...
  We can invite the Parents Television Council, the EU, China's government...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:10pm

Love it
I love this from their site:

The entertainment industry�s treasure � its content � is being plundered by pirates of all forms. In today�s digital world, we are under siege by organized crime, anonymous hackers, recalcitrant cyberlockers, and even our own customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Invisible Hand (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:22pm
  
  Re: Love it
  The saddest part:
  
  ...and even our own customers.
  
  So, anyone that doesn't play by their arbitrary set of rules (even those that actually gave them money), is labeled a criminal. Great.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Love it
    I think the whole thing is awesome.
    
    organized crime - actually online pirating is taking care of this
    
    anonymous hackers - because letting people have control over the devices they purchased is down right communist
    
    recalcitrant cyberlockers - Well, we all know internet connected disk space is PURE F-ING EVIL
    
    even our own customers - okay, if you're pissing off the people that want to give you money I just can't help you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kosmonautbruce (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:17pm

Such an amount of FAIL
I'm tempted to try and go to this, just to hear all the bitching and moaning. Most industry conferences are lame, but this one may be a Hall of Fame-level disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 4:39pm

"The entertainment industry�s treasure � its content �..."

That is exactly why they will go under and end up on the soup line.

They don't see the real treasure and that is the people, which is the soil where their fool's gold grow on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aerilus, 30 Nov 2010 @ 5:33pm

you know
I used to be under the impression that it was illegal for a bunch of people from the same industry to get together and talk about price stabilization and how to make money Isn't this the definition of price fixing or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RandomGuy (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:24pm

If that's really how "top leaders" in the "industry" think, then it's no "surprise" that they're "up shit creek".

"Desperation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re:
  I like your style man LoL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:07pm

"Note the massive overuse of "quotation marks" around everything"

"HEY" "I" "RESEMBLE" "THAT" "REMARK"

Plus I did it all in Caps ... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umbrau44 (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:47pm

Perhaps they believe that by not implementing DRM, they will end up "living" in a "van", "DOWN BY THE RIVER!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 9:50pm

LoL gotcha ya little fishy!

You are funny dude.

"A MASSIVE software industry, creating a vast array of products and functions that has changed the way the world woks."

Yep the industry is massive despite rampant piracy what that tells you about delusional claims of harm?

"A MASSIVE music industry, MTV and music production companies."

Hmmm...not so massive anymore 2 or 3 are gone already just 3 or 4 to go. Artists on the other hand are making more money then ever, and again what that does tell you about absurd claims about how piracy is destroying the "industry".

"A massive movie industry, multi-million dollar movies."

Yep you said it, it is big and growing and piracy is rampant, now exactly where is the harm piracy is causing again?

Because we all know piracy is rampant and it didn't slow down for all these years so either piracy doesn't matter or you are lying about the health of all those industries which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 10:02pm

Perhaps we're all wrong and it's a "surprise" grammar seminar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 30 Nov 2010 @ 10:04pm

its about paying for what you get
yes, we can just rip of the content creators, so they dont make any money..

But ofcourse, even when they cant afford to create quality content, when the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. That means it is not worth their effort, or inventment to create content.

So you file sharers, will be able to pirate all the content you want.. Except there will be far less content for you to steal.

Or do you think the GOOD artists, actors, directors, production companies, will do all their work for free ?.

Not for free, for MINUS money, so they pay their labour, and get nothing in return..

But that is ok for you guys, you dont mind not having content, as long as the content that you do have you can take for free.

thats great for the consumer, they get something for free, but not so great for the producer, who still have to pay for the products, and creation of the content.

And if the marginal cost (including risk of it not being a hit) is greater than the marginal benefit. They cannot create that content..

Its always about what you want and what you can get for free, its never about the community, or society, or the consequences of more and more illegal file sharing.

We have allready lost TPB and the likes, they used to be great, and if not abused you could gain alot of great stuff..

Not anymore though, that has been screwed up by the all too gready people. The hurt locker downloads, and the top 10 and so on.

No one here ever things about the entire system, and how that system is supposed to work, ie how content creators can afford the risk of creating content, with the uncertainlty of future profits.

For you im sure its ok to pay for your electricity, and for your computer, and everything else you use that takes labour, money, time to provide to you.

Electricity, all they do is burn stuff, once they buy the generator, and power plant they make lots of money.. You dont think it is your right to get electricity for free do you ?

Why is it you are willing to fairly pay for the things you use, and consume, knowing full well it cost money to provide those too you.

You dont think it costs money to provide you with entertainment content, or software. or music, or movies?

You are quite happy to pay a factory worker who builds part of your car, you know he has to be paid, you know he probably has a family, needs to think about retirement, kids schooling and so on.

So why do you think that people who create content that no one is willing to pay for ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 10:38pm
  
  Re: its about paying for what you get
  http://torrentfreak.com/i-leaked-black-ops-confessions-of-an-xbox-360-pirate-101130/
  
  There greedy one. Pirates always win :)
  
  Now seriously after CNN saying how good Kickstarter is and Neil Gaiman even producing a short film with it you still think people will not have content?
  
  Stop producing content dude, I don't care and other people don't care, there will always be someone that will produce something and that person will rip the benefits of being a decent human loving person instead of a greedy vengeful fool.
  
  This is not about law, is about what can be done and what cannot, it is about capabilities, which by the way the IP crowd was found lacking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 11:15pm
  
  Re: its about paying for what you get
  Who cares about people like you?
  
  I don't and it is my money I choose not to give it to people like you and there is nothing you can do about it, not a thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 5:20am
  
  Re: its about paying for what you get
  How many keyboards do you get through while typing your lies, myths and distortions? You could try shorter messages with higher levels of facts if you're that worried about the price of electricity.
  
  I'll be over here paying for the content I enjoy that doesn't come from morons who think like yourself. If the companies whose bosses think like you all died tomorrow, everybody outside of their sad, pathetic group would be a lot better off. It's a damn shame it's taking so long, but inevitable if your mindset is followed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 8:01am
  
  Re: its about paying for what you get
  http://www.thepiratebay.org
  
  It's still up and running, don't know why you keep saying it isn't. Great "victory" there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 10:47pm

"So why do you think that people who create content that no one is willing to pay for ?"

People like you? paid?

In your dreams, I rather pay a hooker she is probably more clean than people like you :)

What you are selling I'm not buying and that is the end of it, you can call me names but I defy you to catch me pirating anything.

I'm sick and tired of people like you who think they deserve everything and don't need to work for it.

You lazy people who don't produce anything and keep leeching society, keep triple dipping in the people's pockets and still claim they own you something.

w00t, this has ended, you want money go find another schmuck to try nickel and dime, this one is done, no more money for darryl and his friends.

Don't like it? I don't care, is my money and I do with it what I want and I don't want to give it to people like you ever.

You think I need your "content"? Dream on pal I don't need you, nobody "needs" you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 1 Dec 2010 @ 1:05pm

speakers list
I note that there doesn't appear to be anyone on the speakers list who has managed to successfully trade in the new environment. How many do you suppose they invited...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 3 Dec 2010 @ 9:49am

I appreciate the answers about my question concerning MMO's, but many of the provided examples still use copyright. My question was, how would one make an MMO without copyright? I'm sure it's possible, I just don't know how it would be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]