Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak

Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?

Movie Industry

from the misplaced-priorities dept

Tue, Feb 22nd 2011 11:42am — Mike Masnick
We've already written about the news that ex-Senator Chris Dodd has gone back on his promises and his principles to take the top lobbying job at the MPAA, but this recent article in Hillicon Valley, talking with interim MPAA boss Bob Pisano, is bizarre in that it shows how incredibly misguided the MPAA's entire strategy is. We've seen that the MPAA has an entire "content protection" staff, but doesn't appear to have a staff of folks dedicated to actually helping filmmakers to adapt and to succeed in the modern era. But it strikes me as ridiculously short-sighted that the MPAA admits that its number one priority is getting the government to "fight piracy."
Interim CEO and president Bob Pisano told Hillicon Valley earlier this month that the media's fixation on who would succeed former chairman Dan Flickman hadn't changed his organization's unwavering focus on its top priority, which is increasing the federal government's efforts to stop online film piracy.
And, yes, the amusing misspelling of Dan Glickman's name is in the original. But, more to the point, why is getting the government to fight piracy the MPAA's "top priority," when study after study has shown that piracy, alone, is not damaging the industry. It's the failure to compete and to come up with smarter business models that is causing trouble for filmmakers. Even if you got rid of piracy, it's not like it would suddenly drive people to start buying again. Perhaps the real problem is that Pisano (a lawyer, of course) is so clueless when it comes to business, he doesn't realize what business the movie industry is even in:
"I don't care how much you talk about it you can't compete with free," Pisano said.
And, that, right there, is why the MPAA should fire him and hire someone who actually understands business (which is not Chris Dodd). Of course, you can compete with free. Lots of businesses do it all the time and plenty of movie makers have successfully done it for years. Why would Pisano flat-out lie?

It's almost not worth mentioning that Pisano also talks up the importance of COICA and how happy he is that Homeland Security has been seizing domains in violation of the First Amendment and basic due process, even taking down tens of thousands of perfectly innocent sites. These are the people who run Hollywood now? Censorship-loving folks who can't understand basic business principles? No wonder they're so worried about failing. They have no clue what they're doing.
Hide this

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: bob pisano, chris dodd, movies, piracy, priorities
Companies: mpaa

107 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Brendan (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:05am

    Windowing strategy

    The window for helping filmmakers doesn't arrive for another 10 years.

    Studies have shown we can make more money by dealing in high margin goods first, such as subersion of democracy, and then slowly introduce lower margin down the road, such as actually doing hard work.

    Windows have been very successful for us, so we assume that success will continue without having to revisit our strategy.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:51am

    WE JUST NEED BIGGER STICKS!!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mike42 (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:58am

    Ha! Gotcha Mike!

    They know EXACTLY what they're doing! They're failing!
    BAM!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:14pm

    And this is why today's movies suck.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:19pm

      Re:

      http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3063&p=.htm

      In 2011, Hollywood will rely on former glories to a greater degree than ever before. Sequels (including prequels and spin-offs) comprise over a fifth of the currently scheduled nationwide releases, tallying 27. Last year, there were 19, and the previous high was 24 in 2003.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        fogbugzd (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:25pm

        Re: Re:

        >>Sequels (including prequels and spin-offs) comprise over a fifth of the currently scheduled nationwide releases, tallying 27. Last year, there were 19, and the previous high was 24 in 2003.

        It could be argued that one of the best ways to promote a sequel would be to encourage piracy of the previous episodes.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sssshhhhh, they'll lock you up for that kind of thinking.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            fogbugzd (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            >>Sssshhhhh, they'll lock you up for that kind of thinking.

            I think I am already on the list.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    cc (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:15pm

    The MPAA is looking out for itself. As long as the film industry is failing to adapt, there's a need for lobbyists and lawyers. Should the problems be revolved, the MPAA will lose a lot of funding.

    Simples. Strategy is:
    1) Stir panic within filmmakers
    2) Stifle internet business models
    3) Legislate and lobby using filmmaker money
    4) Profit for MPAA

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fogbugzd (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:23pm

    When Censorship comes home

    It strikes me as very odd that the movie industry is so big to promote censorship or at least the promote use of the tools of censorship. Members of the MPAA are probably at greater risk of feeling censorship that any other part of society. Of course, they see it as their political hacks doing the censoring. That makes it feel safe. For now.

    However, that might change in the future. Suppose Tea Partiers take the White House. All of a sudden the movie industry might find itself facing the same tools being used to take down any site that hosts a movie that "promotes homosexuality" or whatever cause happens to be popular at the moment. How about taking down all films that promote anything on the liberal agenda because it is a threat to America? What happens if a liberal administration decides that the Tea Party is a threat and seizes their websites along with any sites that host movies about Sarah Palin?

    The MPAA is working hard to get the tools of censorship considered normal and healthy. I hope that those tools don't get used against the MPAA and the rest of us in the future.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:09pm

      Re: When Censorship comes home

      All this whining from you pirates unable to adapt to a changing law enforcement scenario is just like a previous problem that faced lawbreakers.

      At the beginning of the 20th century, if you robbed a bank and got out of the state before the cops caught you, you were home free. Technology progressed and brought us the automobile, making it easy to get out uncaught. So the laws were changed. Criminals crossing state lines and bank robbery became a federal crime, a new law enforcement agency (the FBI) was formed, and the problem was brought under control.

      Everyone now accepts these things without a thought. They'll do the same for internet laws and enforcement.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

        are you honestly suggesting that copyright infringment is the same of bank robbery?

        i think im going to go and have a lie down and see if my irony detectors are switched on...

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

          as, natch, as...

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

          Copyright infringement and bank robbery are both federal crimes.

          And copyright infringement costs way, way more than bank robbery

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            TDR, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            Prove it. Now. Empirical, non-industry data and a complete chain of causality. Or you're a liar.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

              Didn't you hear? Everyone stopped making art years ago because of all the copyright infringement.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

              Well its obvious isn't it

              There is loads of piracy
              so naturally it is costing millions and millions of whatever currency we are talking about ( a little bit of future proofing here)

              Every download equals a lost sale, sure I have no evidence, but people wouldn't be downloading stuff if they didn't want it, so if they want it and can't download it then they would have to buy it or do without it, which is only right and proper.
              When you ask for evidence of harm you are encouraging people being put out of work and the loss of billions to good hard working people, because you are implying there might not be harm and therefore giving people with a lesser sense of morals than record executives and movie producers a feeling that they might not be doing wrong when they clearly are.

              Just as requiring seatbelts in cars, not only gives the false impression that cars are in any way dangerous, but also gives people wearing the seatbelts a feeling of invulnerability which inevitably means there are loads more road accidents, this I assert without proof as is my right.

              You should be ashamed but you're not, simply because there is no evidence.
              Requiring evidence is proof of a deranged mind.

              If laws exist, they are right and correct.
              Slavery was legal in the 18th century, so it was right.
              In 1689 it was legal for a 9 year old girl to be married,
              it was also legal for her to get a divorce 2 years later, but only because the marriage had not been consummated.

              Laws are always right, people who argue against laws are always wrong.
              So current and future copyright legislation is all correct and anyone saying otherwise is a crook.

              Freetards are evil.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            coldbrew, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            Most copyright infringement is civil, not criminal. You are such a liar; it's ridiculous.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Brendan (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            Not a crime, nor should it be. It's a civil offense between two private parties, the state has got nothing to do with it. Nor should it.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

              Title 17, US Code, section 506.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Bruce Ediger (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

                What's the matter, can't you LINK to it, so as to make it easier for those of use without a huge library of law books to find it?

                Or is the US code copyright somebody?

                Ha ha!

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Not an electronic Rodent, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            And copyright infringement costs way, way more than bank robbery
            That's a fact folks. Copyright infringement costs way more imaginary money than bank robberies cost insurance companies. Fact.....

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

              "That's a fact folks. Copyright infringement costs way more imaginary money than bank robberies cost insurance companies. Fact.."

              At last someone talking sense on this site.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            MrWilson, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            Last I heard, bribery and corruption were illegal. Also, corporations aren't human beings and should have no influence on elected officials who aren't supposed to be working for people who aren't their human constituents.

            As soon as Congress repeals the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA and any other piece of legislation that has been written either by or for non-human corporations, I'll start agreeing that copyrights need to be respected.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        cc (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

        Those damn pirates!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:38pm

        Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

        In the early part of the 20th century there were numerous bootleggers. Making and transporting alcohol was a crime. Then technology progr...oh...damn. I can't believe they legalized that shit.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

          Prohibition has never worked as an example for you guys because it took something that had been legal forever and made it temporarily illegal. Of course people rebelled.

          Piracy takes something that has always been legally for sale and takes it illegally.

          The attempted Prohibition analogy is retarded. Always has been, always will be.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            "Prohibition has never worked as an example for you guys because it took something that had been legal forever and made it temporarily illegal."

            Anonymous

            To funny, I can work with this. Copyright took something that was legal forever and made it temporarily illegal.

            Look up the Statute of Anne, and how before the printing press scribes copied books with no payment to the authors.

            Hephaestus

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home

            "The attempted Prohibition analogy is retarded. Always has been, always will be"

            The prohibition analogy works because it is about legally attempting to prevent people doing something that they want to do and are going to do and that you have absolutely no ability to stop them doing it.

            It doesn't work in that prohibition made organised crime particularly lucrative and there is no such criminal element involved.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:37pm

    MPAA : The Undisputed Freedom Fighters of Our Age

    The goal of the MPAA is to push the Federal Government to fight piracy by whatever means necessary.

    Freedom of speech? Not important when compared to copyright.

    Due process? Not important for domains where 1) The websites in question do not belong to Big Content, and 2) the domains might be in the vicinity of a copyright infringer, or 3) the domain could have links to a copyright infringer, or 4) the MPAA doesn't really like/understand/care what the website is doing.

    Shake downs? Great! Free Money!

    Governmental mandated backdoors into every formally secure system for communications and transactions? WE Need this to stop piracy/counterfeiting/child porn/terrorism! Who cares if these systems get hacked and people lose their retirement/paychecks/privacy/savings?

    When someone is Fighting Freedom like the MPAA, they deserve the recognition and honor that fits their efforts!

    The MPAA and their members are THE Freedom Fighters of Our Age!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm

      Re: MPAA : The Undisputed Freedom Fighters of Our Age

      How does one make a system "formally secure"?

      I'll bet it involves a few documents and paying a guy in a suit...

      ;-P

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:29pm

        Re: Re: MPAA : The Undisputed Freedom Fighters of Our Age

        I think he meant formerly secure. Once a backdoor has been add to an encryption system, it is no longer secure.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Paul (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: MPAA : The Undisputed Freedom Fighters of Our Age

          Lobo Santo almost certainly understood that, but pretending confusion is a bit more fun.

          I always use a spell checker because I never really did learn to spell. But spell checkers don't catch the wrong words spelled correctly.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm

    How about

    Lets discuss how much the Music corp is making, and where the money goes..NOT counting the creators.
    Lets see. $20 album/movie
    Retailer is the top half of the $20 down to $10
    The Creators get about $1 total. down to $9
    Shipping/handling $1 DOWN TO $8
    Manufacture and labeling $1 down to $7
    Burning/making/dubbing/mixing $1 down to $6
    Advertising $2 down to $4
    Recording CORP $1 down to $3

    Lawyers/Unions/MPAA/and all the other FINGERS IN THE POT $3.

    And DIGITAL music gets rid of 90% of all of it.
    1 burn, 1 recording, sold 1 million times..is easier then 1 million Burned albums shipping and sold in stores.

    1 digital recording is like selling 1 album for $1,000,000.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:51pm

      Re: How about

      The difficulty comes with all those ABOVE LISTED...
      Want money from EACH ALBUM SOLD.
      They WONT take a standard fee/payment for TIME SERVED..

      ALL of them want to make money on EACH ALBUM SOLD, Each piece of plastic-digital or other wise.

      YES, it costs money to make an Original. But, paying continually to EACH of them, is STUPID.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      B, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:57pm

      Re: How about

      The MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. The music industry equivalent is the RIAA.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:47pm

    This isn't surprising...

    ... when Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html) listed out the reasons why movies suck.

    When "2012" makes more money overseas (you know, because there are still people who haven't figured out how to use the internet), it's absolutely important to spend it all fighting piracy.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm

    wow, Masnick is really melting down.

    somebody pass the bottle of Avapro over...

    We've seen that the MPAA has an entire "content protection" staff, but doesn't appear to have a staff of folks dedicated to actually helping filmmakers to adapt and to succeed in the modern era.

    So Masnick admits piracy is a problem and is the only thing different about their business model in "the modern era", but then has an aneurysm when they address exactly that problem?

    Very strange and nonsensical behavior, Mike. Might want to consult with a physician.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:24pm

      Re:

      So Masnick admits piracy is a problem

      [Citation Needed]

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Maybe you meant this sentence:

        study after study has shown that piracy, alone, is not damaging the industry.

        Oh wait. How's that reading comprehension thing coming?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yup, study after study has shown that piracy isn't bad for the music business, yet the sales of recorded music have dropped like stones since the Napster era.

          Cause, meet effect.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            cc (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So, the recorded music bubble is bursting because the fair market value of copies of digital files has effectively become zero.

            But it doesn't matter one bit, because the rest of the music industry is thriving.

            Keep clutching at straws.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            coldbrew, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You should know that correlation doesn't equal causation. Beyond that, the music business is more than just recording, and other things compete for our time these days besides music.

            You already knew all of that, and just want to be lawyerly for us all. You people seem to be throwing temper tantrums in the comments these days. I wonder why that is...

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yup, study after study has shown that piracy isn't bad for the music business, yet the sales of recorded music have dropped like stones since the Napster era.

            Cause, meet effect.

            Yes, sales of recorded music have dropped. Since its not piracy, it must be something else.

            Could it be that the earlier generation have finished replacing their records and tapes with CDs, and no longer need to buy it again? Yes.

            Could it be that other parts of the music business, such as live concerts and merchandise are growing? Yes.

            Could it be competition from other sources of entertainment such as video games and movies have been growing? Yes.

            Could it be that near ubiquity from personalized music streaming like Pandora that play what customers want to hear instead of the same couple dozen songs (radio)? Yes.

            And that's just 4. If I bothered to try, I could come up with more. Maybe if the recording companies didn't based their entire business model on such a tiny portion of the music business, they wouldn't be in this problem. They didn't diversify; instead they based their entire profit margin on selling plastic discs. The free market demands that they adapt or die.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Piracy correlates perfectly with the decline in profitability of content industries across nations.

              For example, Spain who has some of the worst piracy has been hit the hardest.

              The trends are strongly established enough now it's pretty insane to call it all coincidence.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Jay (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Maybe if the recording companies didn't based their entire business model on such a tiny portion of the music business, they wouldn't be in this problem. They didn't diversify; instead they based their entire profit margin on selling plastic discs. The free market demands that they adapt or die."

              Just saying, it looks like the record labels are doing more 360 deals, where they get cuts of all that an artist does. Doesn't help that artists can still go it alone, but with these deals at least it's not all favored towards the label or copyright holder.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              martyburns (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


              Yes, sales of recorded music have dropped. Since its not piracy, it must be something else.

              Could it be that the earlier generation have finished replacing their records and tapes with CDs, and no longer need to buy it again? Yes.

              Could it be that other parts of the music business, such as live concerts and merchandise are growing? Yes.

              Could it be competition from other sources of entertainment such as video games and movies have been growing? Yes.

              Could it be that near ubiquity from personalized music streaming like Pandora that play what customers want to hear instead of the same couple dozen songs (radio)? Yes.


              Could it just be that so much music these days is shit?

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The funny thing about tracking content sales, is that it ignores all the artists who make money by selling scarcities and giving their content away for free. Are they not part of the music business?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Chris, you have to put the puzzle pieces together to sort of understand what is happening.

              Net "music income" between recorded music and live combined hasn't really moved much in 10 years. Less recorded music, more live income. But underlying those numbers is the fact that concert tickets for major shows have jumped tremendously, with a tripling of prices over that period being a lowball number. Go to your local live music club, and the $5 door is now a $20 door. Prices for live music have shot up.

              So when you consider it all, net attendance to live shows isn't really going up, and as more bands attempt to "sell that scarcity" we instead see tours getting cancelled, performers appearing at half empty venues, and huge resistance to high ticket prices. So much so that 2011 will likely be a year that sees live music revenue drop in a significant fashion.

              The only people making marginally more money are the people who are playing at the formally $5 door clubs, who are now charging $20 for the same thing. Even then, we are still talking a beer money issue.

              With more people fighting over the same money, the average take home gets smaller, not bigger. The pie isn't getting bigger, more people want pie, so everyone gets a skinnier slice.

              It's another one of the failings of "RtT+CbF" (reason to take, copied by fans). It puts too large of a financial burden onto a very small number of fans (the ones silly enough to pay the ticket prices), and they appear to be bucking.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                That's a terrible formula for a business model! If musicians are actually resorting to that then I guess they deserve to fail.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btrussell (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sell 1 album $20
            Sell 1 song $1

            Since people tend to buy the one good song from the album, instead of buying the album as in the past...well, you try and figure out the rest.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2011 @ 8:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Weren't you the same AC that told me last week the MPAA and the RIAA don't need my money because Entertainment is the largest export?

            So, which is it?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re:

        study after study has shown that piracy, alone, is not damaging the industry.

        Masnick, in fact, knows piracy is a huge problem, and it is what he refers to when he talks about "the modern era", "legacy business models" and all his other usual gibberish.

        The internet is a fully integrated tool of commerce now. All content producers have embraced it and have expanded their business models with it.

        They just haven't embraced or accepted piracy. And that's what drives Masnick crazy.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    jon day, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm

    mpaa are terrorists do what we say or else. that is their business plan.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jon Lawrence (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:13pm

    Welcome.

    To my everyday life.

    I'm a member of the Producers Guild of America; and our leadership *COMPLETELY* has their heads... er... in the sand on this too.

    It drives me insane that some of our dues goes to lobby right in line with the MPAA; and that none of it goes to do things like put together pro-active conference days where we can take a look at creating new business models. (Yes, I have proposed this, no they won't allocate any money for it).

    And yes, I could quit the Guild, but having earned membership does give me some legitimacy in my career path, and that's helpful.

    At any rate, the long and short of it is, they (the MPAA and PGA leadership) want to see the OLD BUSINESS thrive, not the new one. The new one includes too many competitors for movies to be "special' anymore.

    I don't expect the new business to completely supplant the old business, but I do expect the old business to shrink in overall dollars and relevancy over the next 10-15 years.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:08pm

      Re: Welcome.

      "I don't expect the new business to completely supplant the old business, but I do expect the old business to shrink in overall dollars and relevancy over the next 10-15 years."

      Actually, they will fail due to the competition. There are to many cell phones with video, and the cameras are getting better all the time. Eventually someone will create a game like minecraft with better resolution and start doing movies in it. Think editable MMPG game as a CGI replacement.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jay (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:46pm

        Re: Re: Welcome.

        Too late

        And there's already movies with a cheaper budget than a hollywood movie that are sometimes as good, if not better, than what the big budgeters can do.

        They're bleeding from the inside out. I just doubt they know it yet.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Welcome.

          If that were true then you guys would be pirating those, and not Hollywood movies.

          You guys always insist everything big content produces sucks, but it's always their products that you're ripping off.

          And then you like to pretend you've made a convincing argument when everyone knows you've fooled absolutely no one.

          It's very amusing.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Paul (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome.

            Actually, I don't pirate much of anything. I buy cable at some 70 dollars a month, and go to the theaters for the movies I want to watch (I rarely want to watch a movie at home).

            I don't buy music at all. If I am going to listen to something, I listen to podcasts, and I donate to support the podcasts I like.

            However, I am also a podcaster, and it really stinks that it is so hard to legally use content in a podcast that I avoid everything but absolutely free and clear original content. Sure I might like a bit of music, but is it worth the risk?

            You might think that everyone pirates and is just out to steal from Big Content, but you would be wrong in so many ways. Much of the reason I hate this obsession about pirates is that it is a huge waste of time that could be dealt with much quicker and easier if legal products were just available for sell at a price that makes sense.

            The Free flow of digital information is here forever. As network speeds go up, computational power for encryption goes up, and as storage costs continue to plummet, the flow of digital information will increase. The more digital information can be exchanged, the more people will exchange that information. And much of that information will be so called copyrighted material.

            That is the way it is, and no law can change the facts.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            RadialSkid (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 12:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome.

            Many of us do. Whenever a user responds here to remind you that many of us are NOT "pirates"...that's why.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jay (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome.

            You have no argument whatsoever...

            Red Vs Blue - Made DVDs and have their ENTIRE series on line... FOR FREE!

            Is it pirated? Yes. Does it hurt their sales?

            Link Red vs. Blue attracted interest immediately; the first episode had 20,000 downloads within a day

            And just THAT show helped to spread interest in machinima.

            Now here's a question for you... Where in there does the MPAA put its grubby little paws when others are competing on the smaller scale?

            It's the same as Google taking on Microsoft and slowly chipping away at the monopoly they had in the 90s. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera... All great web browsers. In terms of servers, Apache. I can go on, but the point stands far better than what you seem to believe:

            Competition is coming up on the MPAA, and it's coming up fast.

            They are only hurting themselves by denying that reality.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm

    Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?

    Do I smell a, what do call it, false dichotomy here?

    Are you suggesting that fighting piracy is the opposite of helping the industry thrive? Are they mutually exclusive goals?

    Come on Mike. Remind us again of why you don't support piracy, yet for some reason you hate on anyone trying to do anything about it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      Remind us again of why you don't support piracy, yet for some reason you hate on anyone trying to do anything about it.

      Because it wastes a ton of money and doesn't solve the problem of giving people a reason to buy?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re:

        Chris, that still fails: If everyone pirates it, who buys it?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Me.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If everyone pirates it, who buys it?

          If you lock up all your fans for copying, who buys it?

          I buy things all the time that I could otherwise easily copy, usually because they come with something I can't get anywhere else. If you want my money, sell me on a product that only you can provide. Threatening me with a lawyer won't get me to buy what you're selling; it just costs you a heck of a lot in legal fees.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Hephaestus (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 1:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "If you lock up all your fans for copying, who buys it?"

            They are not going to lock up all their fans, they are going to use this as an education campaign. Perp walks, high profile cases of people gettting put in jail for file sharing. The intent being to scare people straight and fear downloading. When it doesn't work they are going to ask for harsher sentences.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Another User, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The things I have pirated I already have a physical or digital copy. The reason is either they don't offer a digital version and I don't want to spend a hours ripping or the digital version is full of DRM and prevents me from streaming it with to my Media Center, such as iTunes movies to an xBox 360. I already own the content, I am just getting a format that works for my system. If everything was available without all the protection crap with a system that is easy to use then I wouldn't even be downloading torrents.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            freak (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Have you ever excitedly waited for your purchase to come in the mail so you can download it from a torrent?


            . . . I have. It's not behaviour that makes any sense at all if you think humans are motivated by money.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    coldbrew, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm

    RE: Too many law degrees

    There are simply too many lawyers, and they can't help but advise these once-large media companies to do anything other than litigate or abuse the government for their own needs (lobby).

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:44pm

    The MPAA like the RIAA thinks that a successful industry is one it which lots of plastic discs are sold. This is both of their business models, not selling music or movies, selling plastic discs.

    Now if I was in the plastic disc selling business I would want to sell as many as I could of the same type to maximize profits. More profitable to make one disc a whole lot than to make lots of different discs a few times. Thus the lowest-common-denominator crap being pushed all the time.

    I would also try and have my product treated as if it were currency printed at the US Mint. I would use my industry groups to push for as much law as money could buy to make the discs themselves 'Legal Documents'.

    The reason I am doing this is because I have to control my distribution channels properly. It simply wont do to have anyone and everyone legally able to produce their own discs in competition with me. I control who gets it and how, otherwise who sets the price? The market? Hah!

    This is how they see it in my mind. They figure they have nothing to lose. If they were to give up control and laws were returned to some sanity they know they would not be as big as they are. They hate the idea of competition. The LAST thing any longtime established industry wants is competition.

    So its go down fighting and maybe win(I would hate to live in that dystopia nightmare) or die trying.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:02pm

      Re:

      The MPAA like the RIAA thinks that a successful industry is one it which lots of plastic discs are sold. This is both of their business models, not selling music or movies, selling plastic discs.

      See, your basic premise is wrong. You do get it right however, the disks (or other media) are right now the only concrete proof of sale.

      Their successful industry is one that sells the limited rights to a single copy of a movie or music to an individual via a more secure format, and one that proves ownership. For those following along, it also grants you as a result you magic first sale rights, because you can resell the media with the copyright material on it.

      They are not in the business of tossing their content out in the wide open and hoping that a few people decide to pay for it. They are smart enough to see what has happened to the recorded music industry, and none of them want to go down that road.

      What Mike doesn't want you to know is that things have already started to turn the corner. Since the Napster days, it is getting harder and harder to run an actual pirate site, most of torrent sites out there depend on a very few announcing system and an even smaller number of dedicated rippers to make their sites go. Outside of a very few places on the planet, it is almost impossible to operate a legal torrent site. Governments are getting involved, realizing the huge losses of the movie and music industries, and as a result the lossed tax income.

      The shift is on. Heck, even Radiohead is back to selling their music instead of giving it away.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        coldbrew, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:12pm

        Re: Re:

        If you are so sure of yourself, so righteous in your pursuits, and so credible in your industry-specific knowledge why don't you get a blog and sign your name?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why? I didn't know that was a requirement here.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            coldbrew, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's not a requirement, but if you want to claim your views carry equal weight to Masnick's, I can't see why it's a problem. It is you that juxtapose yourself with Masnick here constantly, yet you can't do something so simple; it makes people like me believe you are an industry shill because we can't tell what your self-interest is here (though it's clear there is a conflict of interest).

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm sure no one notices your inability to debate the message so you're forced to try and attack that the messenger is anonymous...

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bruce Ediger (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Wow, I think you should give links to citations for some or all of those extreme claims.

        Because I, for one, don't believe you. What I remember, and my remembering is way better than your bald assertions, is that file sharing is way up, despite all the enforcement.

        The only thing I torrent is the Slackware linux distro, and that's quite legal, but that's what I remember. So there: my memory beats your bald assertions again! Memory for the Win!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:22pm

        Re: Re:

        That is still an old way of thinking on your part. The technology to reproduce content an infinite number of times at near 0 cost is out of the bag.

        There is no way to stop it short of regressing technology, or getting very draconian with how we read, hear, watch content which then leads to WHAT we can read, hear etc.

        The market WILL figure it out if you let it.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The market WILL figure it out if you let it."

          The market is figuring it out. The problem is big content doesn't like the fact that infinite copies equals a price approaching zero.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        freak (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:38pm

        Re: Re:

        "it is getting harder and harder to run an actual pirate site"

        . . . I don't even know where to start.

        Oh, wait, yes I do.
        "About 6,960,000 results (0.23 seconds)"
        "About 3,975,000 results (0.18 seconds)"

        That's the results of searching google for a recent-ish movie, and then the same search string with "torrent" as a necessary keyword.

        Maybe you don't see any big pirating sites anymore? Because, apparently, we have about 4 million small ones?

        And hey, torrenting isn't the only way to pirate; what if I just search "+P2P"?
        "About 689,000 results (0.21 seconds)"

        What if I say "+download"?
        "About 4,810,000 results (0.22 seconds)"

        (Note: that includes, or should include, all of p2p and torrenting, which seems to indicate about at least 200,000 other hits have something to do with downloading the movie without using p2p or torrenting, assuming that p2p and torrenting have no intersection. If p2p and torrent completely overlap, that's nearly a million non-torrent non-p2p overlap)

        Of course, a good comparision would also compare those numbers against similar numbers from 5 years ago or so.
        Just so we can see whether it's gotten more or less popular.
        It would also examine those results to see what percent of them actually have anything to do with a) the movie b) downloading it.
        (The top results, ie: 1st two pages, all do).


        Technologically, it's only gotten easier to pirate. Whether you're for or against pirating, I don't see how you can argue that fact.

        Where would you like to start, to inform me of how it's gotten harder to pirate?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Michael, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:43am

        Re: Re:

        "the disks (or other media) are right now the only concrete proof of sale"

        Wow. That's probably the most odd statement I have heard in the past year. Are you seriously saying that they pay millions of dollars each year to accountants and their statements all read "xxx number of plastic disks sold"?

        "Proof of sale" in itself is completely irrelevant. Profit (usually in dollars) is all they care about. They are going about it in the wrong way because their business model made most of it's profits on plastic disks, but their bottom line is still money.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    brian, 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:24pm

    simple question...

    If all the movie piracy in the US stopped, would the Box Office ticket prices go down?


    Yep, didn't think so.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm

      Re: simple question...

      That's a result to be determined in a true free market capitalist system. Same rules for all businesses.

      And I guarantee you prices won't go down unless piracy is managed.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bruce Ediger (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:32pm

        Re: Re: simple question...

        It's weird that prices won't go down unless piracy is managed, because according to a pretty standard, econ-101 style analysis, prices will be *lower* in markets with piracy:

        http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten/Rants/piracy.html

        That analysis uses "software" as the good in question, but I think it will work for anything else.

        So where do your get the certainty of your guarantee?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jay (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:54pm

        Re: Re: simple question...

        Hmmm... Forgetting how to compete with free...

        When a monopolist corners the market (as the MPAA wants to do), prices increase.

        Now that there's diversity in product (I can get Avatar on Youtube, Netflix, Veoh, torrent, DVD, filesharing site, or anywhere else for the price I want) the market price has to go somewhere. Wonder how that consumer surplus is doing...?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo
Crytek Manages Not To Lose Their Minds Despite Crysis 2 Leak
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.