Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights

from the nice-'retirement' dept

Wed, Mar 2nd 2011 7:16am — Mike Masnick

As was expected, former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year. Just months ago, he announced that he would not, under any condition, take a lobbying job. And here it is, just a month or so after he left the Senate and he's confirmed that he's taken the top job at the MPAA, an organization, who just a week ago admitted its number one priority was lobbying the government. Of course, Dodd is also using a loophole to get around the laws that forbid Senators from jumping to lobbying jobs so quickly after leaving the Senate. On top of that, in announcing this, he also talked up the importance of increasing our already draconian copyright laws, with views that appear to contrast to what he said back when he was a Senator and claimed he supported internet freedom. I guess that million dollar plus per year salary eases the conscience.

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: chris dodd, consumers, copyright, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa

80 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Joe Publius, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:18am

!
Quelle surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Re: !
  I'm not sure if Masnick included quite enough fabrication and hyperbole in his headline.
  
  Would the class like to manufacture some more?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re: !
    And right on time, the idiot pops up!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: !
    Quite a statement. Would you care to highlight where he fabricated anything? As for the hyperbole I don't see how "Promises To Trample Consumer Rights" can be seen as anything but a declarative statement. The MPAA is already known to trample on consumers with their ultra-protectionism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: !
      Calling Dodd a liar was hyperbole.
      
      The rest of Masnick's headline was just a straight-up fabrication.
      
      The thought of copyright being enforced apparently makes Masnick lose control of his normal functions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: !
        Calling a liar a liar doesn't seem very hyperbolic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: !
        Has he been proven to be a liar? What about DUE PROCESS, or should we just take your word for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Joe Publius, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Less hyperbole, more opinion.
        I don't think of it as hyperbole, it's more like an opinion.
        
        Let me put it like this:
        Unless Dodd represents a change from the "Copyright lasts forever, minus a day; let's have ICE shutter without due process 1,000 websites to stop one infringing site" IP maximalist position, then I would consider him representing a message that not only tramples consumer rights, but the public domain, and culture in general.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 2 Mar 2011 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: !
        "Sen. Chris Dodd says he still doesn't know what he'll do come January 2011, when, for the first time in 36 years, he will no longer be a member of Congress. But he has ruled out one option.
        
        'No lobbying, no lobbying,' Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington's 'revolving door,' using his policy and political expertise--and a thick Rolodex--to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise."
        
        http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7485/lawmakerlobbyists
        
        "Christopher Dodd, the former five-term Democratic senator from Connecticut, was named Tuesday to head the Motion Picture Association of America.
        
        Dodd, who just retired after declining to run for a sixth Senate term, replaces Bob Pisano, the lobbying group�s interim chief since April."
        
        http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/dodd-mpaa/
        
        So what part of calling Dodd a liar is hyperbolic?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 4 Mar 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: !
        > Calling Dodd a liar was hyperbole.
        
        Well, considering he blatantly lied about not becoming a lobbyist, I'd say you're full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:19am

Not surprised..
Just goes to show how corrupt Congressmen are. I'm not sure whether the job is a reward for influence or payback for votes done in congress. Either way Congress has to be one of the most corrupt groups in the country.

Naturally rules are made to prevent the problem, but the Congressmen always make sure there a loopholes so they can still do what they want to earn millions.

are there any honest people either in Congress or ex-Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Not surprised..
  Someone can get fifteen years in jail for scamming a business. From what I hear, if someone scams a big casino, the consequences could be ten years in jail.
  
  Yet, this X senator can lie to the public and break the law (under the pretext that he is utilizing some loophole) and no one would ever prosecute him and he won't see a single day in jail, despite the fact that his lies have a far wider impact than the impact these people who can face multiple years in jail have.
  
  Pfizer can knowingly sell Aids tainted blood and pharma companies get away with all sorts of illegal activities and the consequences are that the corporation (the shareholders) end up paying penalties but those actually responsible for the crime are not held personally accountable and they never see a single day in jail and they don't pay for their crimes out of their personal assets because of the corporate veil. Yet we're then supposed to believe that corporations are people, but, unlike people, corporations can commit all sorts of crimes and not face any jail time and they can protect those actually responsible for the crimes from facing any jail time whatsoever or paying anything out of their personal assets. Amazing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:21am

ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
ya got to love minority govts eh?
Can't get anything done even when they do try and lobby....
HAHA
can't wait to see the electric chair for a download of a music tune. That's the day it all will end.

AND then we'll kill the actors and musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
  "AND then we'll kill the actors and musicians"
  
  Is that before or after the lawyers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
    Can't be simultaneously?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - byte^me (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
    You beat me to it. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- byte^me (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
  I think we should start by killing the lawyers. Life would be much easier then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Darryl, 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
    yes, Mike's a lawyer, good idea :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bikey, 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: ohhhhhhh canada we stand on guard for thee
  This is what distinguishes us from the Mongols (who, by the way were at least consistent - they believed urban life was evil and acted on that belief)- they never killed actors or musicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:21am

He takes a job leading an organization that does extensive lobbying. Does this make him a lobbyist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  He takes a job leading an organization that does extensive lobbying. Does this make him a lobbyist?
  Coming up after the break, French cooking program: "Instructions Pour Bissecter des Li�vres"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:23am

@4
na it makes him an economic terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:37am

Get a life, Masnick
"..former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year.."

Listen, bub, I don't know who you are but Dodd needs to pay back the specially-priced Countrywide Home Loan to Angelo Mozilo (with interest) and the MPAA probably gave him the best terms.

Let a man work. Just because you have ethics doesn't mean Dodd can't. Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:38am

And he will appoint bi-wining Charlie Sheen to lead the troops for the Apocalypse Now!

He will show them pussies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tubes (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Winning
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:38am

You call this reporting?
"..former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year.."

Listen, bub, I don't know who you are but Dodd needs to pay back the specially-priced Countrywide Home Loan to Angelo Mozilo (with interest) and the MPAA probably gave him the best terms.

Let a man work. Just because you have ethics doesn't mean Dodd can't. Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: You call this reporting?
  No, bitch YOU call this reporting. It's opinion. Fuck off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:38am

Mama
A pimp can rightfully claim that he isn't a prostitute, but that doesn't mean his mama will be proud of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Mama
  It also doesn't mean he can't be arrested for prostitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:40am

Well, at least Dodd's still embracing the pirate ethos
"Take all ye can. Give nothing back."

(Of course, this ethos was delivered in an MPAA product. This either increases the irony or makes me ashamed to be quoting it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:50am
  
  Re: Well, at least Dodd's still embracing the pirate ethos
  Thank you for that. It will give me a punny little something to meditate upon all day long.
  
  :-D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: Well, at least Dodd's still embracing the pirate ethos
  "(Of course, this ethos was delivered in an MPAA product. This either increases the irony or makes me ashamed to be quoting it.)"
  
  You have just infringed copyright by quoting that!! Yer next in line for Ol' Sparky now!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:52am

See, politicians are like lawyers (most are lawyers), they aren't really people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- byte^me (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  Sadly, I almost have to agree with that statement.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:52am

We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
I am afraid that we have a long fight in front of us to get real, meaningful copyright and other IP reform. Every time I try to discuss the issue with someone, they say "yea, but that is immoral". They can't get past any possible moral implications to file sharing. I try to explain that it isn't about the morality of it all, it is about market forces. It is about creating content that people want and giving it to them the way they want to consume it. If you don't do both, you wont last long. It is simple Business 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:05am
  
  Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
  >>They can't get past any possible moral implications to file sharing.
  
  To me the objective isn't to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws.
  
  Try turning the question around and asking "Who's the pirate?" I think it was Courtney Love who asked that question originally. Is it fair that a budding young artist can't even sing their own songs at open mike nights because they have all been shut down due to extortion and bizarre licensing requirements? If I want my music to be streamed for free I find I can't because the collection societies collect money on all music that is streamed and make it virtually impossible to run small indie-only streaming services? Is it fair that most bands who win the lottery and get signed to a record deal never see a penny from selling albums? Is it fair to have my own music taken down from youtube because of a bogus DCMA notice? Is it fair to have law firms go into the mass extortion business with flimsy claims of P2P activity?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
    "To me the objective isn't to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws."
    
    This is exactly the argument I am making, but people just shut down on the moral issue. Their ears close, their eyes roll back into their head and their bodies shake uncontrollably. At that point, nothing I say will penetrate their defenses.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
      They snicker at you because they see you're in denial about your rationalizations.
      
      They might pity you, but I wouldn't give you a glass of water if you were on fire.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        And you wonder why your side is losing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        STOP!
        
        This is the problem with the whole copyright debate. Each side thinks it is morally superior to the other and that the other must "lose" somehow.
        
        It does not work that way. It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" situation. We must continue to work to educate people and to reach an understanding that is beneficial to artists and, above all else, society.
        
        Piracy exists and will continue to exist. We must find ways to turn that into an advantage because, clearly, what has been done until now has clearly failed and will continue to fail, until we take an objective and sincere look tat the problem.
        
        Your comment and the one above do not help in the least.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        One side has hundreds of millions of people breaking the law every day. The other side has the political class and mainstream media at their beck and call.
        
        I'll stop when they do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        My "side" is actually winning. You will never destroy the laws that protect artists and creators.
        
        You slimeballs deserve every bit of invective you get here for being so greedy, and for promoting the ripping off of musicians.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        And the geeks shall inherit the virtual earth. Good luck fighting the 13 year old whiz kids in Uzbekistan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        Way to go with the reasoned debate. Next up: "Jesus, and why he was just a freeloading f*cking hippie", coming next week, "Stalin was a pandering, limp-wristed pussy"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Berenerd (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        Destroy the laws? Nope. Ignore morons like you? Yup. I will no longer support a company that can't grown with the times. Its a foolish venture and this is why the world's economy is failing. People can't change with the times. Weird Al has it right...
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        Are you willing to declare yuor credentials as to why the fuck you look down on everyone who disagrees with you as a 'freetard piracy apologist'?
        
        OR are you just a fuckwad, as per the Greater Fuckwad Theorem?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 4:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        "My "side" is actually winning."
        
        Really? Downloading has stopped? Coming from a shilltard like you it must be true!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        "My "side" is actually winning."
        
        Piratebay says no.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Greevar (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        I'd give you a glass of water. Oops! That was vodka! Sorry!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        Johnny was a chemist's son, but Johnny is no more. What Johnny thought was H-2-O was H-2-S-O-4.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...
        And, as if on cue, someone comes around to prove John's point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jd, 2 Mar 2011 @ 7:55am

I am sorry but for a million bucks per year I'd say anything to Congress. And nearly everyone else here would, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fickelbra (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  EDIT: Anyone here as big a slave to money as you are here, would. There are people in the world, few as they are, that want to leave an impression, not a bank account.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't. I'd take the money and send it in the opposite direction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  I am so glad that you suck as a human being.
  
  Not so sure I like the fact that in order to make yourself feel better about it that you need to pretend that everyone else in the world sucks as much as you.
  
  Sure. Many people are selfish asses who will destroy the foundation that they stand upon to build a flimsy step ladder to temporarily raise themselves up.
  
  Not me though. I would rather have long term stability and happiness.
  
  Though if you get into the 40 - 50 mil/year range and give me a 10 year plus contract I may sell out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  "I am sorry but for a million bucks per year I'd say anything to Congress. And nearly everyone else here would, too."
  
  Keep telling yourself that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  Most of the posters here live with their parents and have no concept of work or money. So you might have to wait a few years for your theory to pan out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - teka (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is one of my favorites!
    
    Anyone who disagrees with me is a child!
    They Must be living in mommies house, because grownups like Me! Me! Me~! all know that I am totally smart and right.
    
    Keep the comedy flowing, anonymous coward who also also calls people "slimeballs" when they protest a lying political and claims this entire article is fabrication (but at the time of this post, has not replied to the evidence of how wrong they are)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
V, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:00am

How do you...
Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
Q: Their mouth is moving.

Why anyone would suspect a member of our congress to have any sort of honor, conscious or respect for the laws of our country is bewildering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:16am

You expected truth from a politician?
Good God, man, you'll be expecting charity from Wall Street Bankers next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:38am

To resolve his cognitive dissonance of supporting internet freedom vs. getting 1 million a year he simply shifted his point of view that stricter copyright is better. Accepting (and giving) money can do wonders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:51am

Like usual politicians don't give a crap about your or me just who lines their pocketbooks. Then they can pretend nothing is wrong in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:59am

This is the very reason I feel that material and monetary contributions to campaigns and elected officials should be looked upon as the bribery that it is and outlawed. Nobody should be allowed to buy the laws from the government. So, you want to help your candidate get into office? Volunteer your time instead of your money.

Oh, but how will candidates get funding to campaign? How about a grant from the government of a fixed amount? Now the campaign has to be won on merit rather than advertising power. It will never happen though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:05am

Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp, and IP maximists lie. It's what they do. Yet we're supposed to trust these people to run our country in the public interest or to lobby the government for laws that benefit the public? I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  Dogs bark, cats meow, birds chirp, and IP maximists lie
  
  and you whine like a little girl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So when IP maximists lie you don't want anyone to say anything? You just want us to pretend like it never happens, like the mainstream media does? I guess criticism isn't something IP maximists can tolerate. They're too sensitive about their unsupported position.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:08am

For a couple of million a year I'd sell my principles and possibly one of my kidneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:12am

Loophole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:18am

Almost everyone has 'their price' - some are much, much cheaper than others.

My "side" is actually winning. You will never destroy the laws that protect artists and creators.

You slimeballs deserve every bit of invective you get here for being so greedy, and for promoting the ripping off of musicians.

And maybe not - who says anyone is looking to destroy artists anyway? Point is - technology is changing, they can get on-board or not, it's up to them.

I suspect the tide of 'peer to peer' - will be harder to stop than it would be to eliminate these laws in any event.

But many companies have embraced new technology and business models - take NetFlix for instance. No laws have been changed, but that doesn't change BlockBuster's position... The one up the street from me just shut down.

If all this 'peer to peer' is killing profits - why is NetFlix basically kicking sand in the competition's face?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/26/netflix-profit-up-45-in-q4-nears-10-million-total-subscr ibers/

"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."

Because they hit the ground running. Imagine.. the potential of media delivered to people in an easy to use and hassle free manner - kinda like NetFlix?

What kind of profit potential is there?

Sorry, but the market for the proverbial horse and buggy is dying. Doesn't matter what's made illegal - that will not change this simple fact: I am not willing to pay for the old business model anymore. I pay for cable - not for the sitcoms and 15 minute commercial spots - I pay for the on-demand.

The music industry's business model sucks bad. I don't even bother anymore. I just ripped the CD's I have to digital files and listen to the same old stuff I have been. Otherwise there's XM. But 99% of the new stuff just isn't compelling - for the price - to buy.

Of course, lately - I managed to find a few new artists out there - independents that are pretty dang good..

And yes, I pay for my media, I'm not a leech. But if I'm going to pay for a product, it has to be a purchase that makes sense.

Would I buy an 8-track now? No.

What's the sense in buying CD's now? The technology jump between CD and Digital was even larger than the jump from 8-track to CD... by far.

Do music companies offer high quality physical disks with an entire band's anthology on them in digital formats? You could put ALL of the Beatles tunes on a single DVD - two at most, depending on quality. But it's not out there, is it?

You might be able to find some overpriced collection for $70.00 - but is that worth it - when the public is fully aware of the potential to use new technology?

Nope, it isn't.

If you can't give the customer what they desire - it's a fault of the business, not the customer. We know the technology is out there and we will use it - doesn't matter if the music industry likes it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:36pm
  
  Re:
  "Almost everyone has 'their price' - some are much, much cheaper than others."
  
  Wasn't MM's price something like 2 million to shut him up for a year?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:22am

*And read this again*

"Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent."

How is it that they did THIS WELL - when people can just download movies? Care to explain that?

Oh I can - it's because it's a good, hassle free service. People don't mind paying for media - but people don't like getting ripped off.

Plain and simple - $17.00 for 15 songs - is a rip-off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FormerAC (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:01am
  
  Re:
  Plain and simple - $17.00 for 15 songs - is a rip-off.
  
  ^This. The record companies have lied and colluded to fix prices at astronomical levels even as production costs declined.
  
  I purchase lots of music. I won't buy a CD at $17. I won't pay more than $7-8 for an MP3 album. I don't but anything from artists whose songs are priced $1.29 each. I might consider buying a used CD, but I am not giving them money when they are artificially inflating prices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:21am

With such an honest, forward-thinking leader, I have every confidence that the MPAA will continue to make decisions with the same competance and common sense that we all know and love for many years to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:51pm

Mike is not a liar but here is file footage of him with his pants on fire!
Get over it guys, MPAA is not a lobby group any more than the building industry, or auto industry, the defense industry etc.

No, as Mike well know, they are a representative body, and every body, and everybody has a right to provide opinion to the government, is that not your first amendment right ?

Mike you lobby ALL THE FREAKING TIME, so what make what you do any different to what this guy does, except he's being paid ?

You Mike lobby far more than he ever will !

As for the million dollars a year, that is probably a pay drop for him. Or would you rather he buy and run TPB ?

Mike you have BALLS to call anyone a liar, Mike you are the master of spin.

And he is not employed as a registered lobbyist, neither I would assume is the MPAA, so who is the liar?

Seems more like your the one telling porkies Mike.

But we are used to that from you, we almost expect it! unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Mike is not a liar but here is file footage of him with his pants on fire!
  And that's the point. ON OpenCongress, MPAA is listed as a major contributor under 'Lobbying'. So, if they're not a lobbying group, then what are they? Scotch mist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Darryl, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Mike is not a liar but here is file footage of him with his pants on fire!
    YES just like the military industry, the auto industry, and the Scotch mist industry, the electronics and computing industry, and so on and so on..
    
    An industry representative body, has a duty to YOU KNOW, represent that industry. that means doing things and trying to enhance and improve and promote their industry.
    
    That does not mean at all that their main function is to lobby, it is not,
    
    If you want to hire a lobbiest you do not go to MPAA for that, that is not their core industry, but they are a representative body, therefore a voice for an industry.
    
    As such I have the right, and requirement to do just that, representive body.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:55pm

Mississauga Pilipino Athletic Association
Welcome to the official MPAA website. Here you will find Team Schedules, League Standings, Individual Stats, Discussion Boards, and much more.

http://mpaa.ca/

I don't see anywhere there where they say all they do is lobby !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: Mississauga Pilipino Athletic Association
  Discussion boards lol...
  
  As if the (real) mpaa would ALLOW DISCUSSION. lmfao!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
egbert, 3 Mar 2011 @ 6:57am

apart from showing what a liar he is, it shows how little concern politicians (and ex-politicians) have for the people they supposedly represent, the lengths they will go to to be elected in the first place and how they are more interested in feathering their own nests than doing the job they were elected to do. when the truth of their actions comes out, they then not only deny everything but do (or get done) what ever is needed to stifle those truths!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lee, 10 May 2011 @ 9:53pm

Is this ment to be serious?
Calling Dodd a liar was hyperbole.

The rest of Masnick's headline was just a straight-up fabrication.

The thought of copyright being enforced apparently makes Masnick lose control of his normal functions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]