Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding
from the say-what-now? dept
Well, it's been a little over a week since Chris Dodd embraced the fact that he was a liar concerning his post-Senate career, and embraced this by misrepresenting the biggest issues facing the movie industry. In that week, he's apparently been reading from the MPAA "book of propaganda" and is getting better at it. In a speech to theater owners, he's tied together so many falsehoods that someone might actually believe some of them! I've embedded the whole speech below -- it's really a piece of work -- but let's dig into a few sections.Let’s begin with perhaps the single biggest threat we face as an industry: movie theft. At the outset, I want you to know that I recognize and appreciate that NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording. Further, I want you to know that the member studios of the MPAA deeply appreciate the efforts you make every day to stop the hemorrhaging of movie theft in your theaters.Let's begin with perhaps the single biggest lie: that copyright infringement is "theft." It's not. Stop saying it is. It makes you look like a dishonest fool, who is in no way capable of actually helping the movie industry adapt to the changing marketplace. As for the "camcording" threat, the MPAA still loves to talk this up, but still ignores the fact that the real issue is industry insiders leaking movies themselves...
Nearly 2.5 million people work in our film industry. The success of the movie and TV business doesn’t just benefit the names on theater marquees. It also affects all the names in the closing credits and so many more –middle class folks, working hard behind the scenes to provide for their families, saving for college and retirement. And since movies and TV shows are now being made in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, movie theft harms middle class families and small businesses all across the country.Yeah, this has become a favorite trope of the industry lately. About all those poor key grips suffering from movie infringement. Of course, this is also a lie. File sharing has no direct impact on those people at all. They don't make any royalties on films. They were paid (not particularly well by the MPAA studios, mind you) for the job that they did, and move on to the next job. Where they suffer is when the MPAA and its member studios fail to embrace smarter business models, such that they have trouble financing new movies. But, as we've seen, the box office continues to do well, and indie filmmakers who are embracing new models are doing increasingly well. Perhaps the issue is that the MPAA should be helping filmmakers understand and embrace new models.
Those who steal movies and TV shows, or who knowingly support those who do, don’t see the faces of the camera assistant, seamstresses, electricians, construction workers, drivers, and small business owners and their employees who are among the thousands essential to movie making. They don’t see the teenager working their first job taking tickets at the local theater, or the video rental store employees working hard to support their families.
But I guess that's just outside of Dodd's realm of expertise.
We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of movie theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and on our ability to make the kinds of movies and TV shows people wish to see.Fascinating that he claims this in the weeks after two separate, well respected research organizations both pointed to tons of evidence that stronger enforcement doesn't work. Nice work, Chris, you're parroting the failed policies of your predecessors, rather than showing any form of leadership.
After three decades in Congress, I have some idea how to attract the attention of a Congressman or Senator. When you return to your states, invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families. Tell them about the importance of these issues to you and to your communities. If you become that educator, you will leave a lasting and indelible impression on those who will make decisions about your future.In other words, show them a good time, since the logic behind our positions makes no sense at all. However, if we entertain them for free, perhaps they'll feel indebted to give us protectionist, anti-competitive, anti-innovation policies that will help us wring a few extra dollars out of consumers, rather than innovating to add more value.
What I’m about to say isn’t quantifiable in economic terms. I can’t put a dollar figure on it for you. I can’t give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic – but as I stand before you this morning one week into this job, I want you to know that it is as important as all data you will have thrown at you during CinemaCon. Our lives are getting more and more complicated. We are increasingly connected to the world by the power of emerging technologies, but at the same time we seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other by the same technology and stream of information and distractions.If I'm reading this correctly, he's basically debunking the entire first part of his speech. The thing is, that "shared experience" is the same thing we've been talking about on Techdirt for ages. It's why the movie industry shouldn't fear file sharing. It should be working towards improving and enhancing that shared experience, because that kind of shared experience can't be pirated.
And yet, in the midst of all of this, if you drop by a movie theater in America or anywhere around the world on a Friday or Saturday night you will see neighborhoods coming together. You will see people turning off their phones and BlackBerrys. You will see families and friends settling in for two hours in a darkened theater. And even though everyone’s eyes are on the screen, it is somehow still a communal experience – unlike any other. The value of that shared experience crosses economic, political and even generational boundaries.
Going to the movies together as a community has stitched together the fabric of American society in a way that few other institutions ever have or could, providing a nation of incredible diversity with a common cultural vocabulary and a common understanding of ourselves. What’s at stake as we face these challenges is nothing short of the preservation and renewal of this quintessentially American communal tradition.
I find it hilarious that Dodd appears to be suggesting that if the MPAA doesn't get stricter enforcement laws, people will suddenly stop wanting to come together as a community to share such experiences. Does anyone take this kind of thing seriously?
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, infringement, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY Chris...
We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws is the only thing we know how to do these days. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of cultural theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and how our ability to steal your culture can have a direct impact on on our ability to make the kinds of profits that we wish to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a line right out of a movie...
The highlighted part above is right out of a movie and should read: "little people, like you Clark".
Extra credit to whoever knows where the quote comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a line right out of a movie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is a line right out of a movie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There have been very few improvements in the theater experience
At home though, lots have changed. I have a 5.1 surround sound stereo, a beautiful 46" flat panel TV and as comfortable chairs & couches as I desire. I also have very cheap snacks and oh yea, beer. :)
So the threat isn't pirating, it especially isn't camcording, it is the greatly improved experience of home theater. In other words, the business model must adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There have been very few improvements in the theater experience
I do. If I could get one of those automatic memory foam beds that could shift me even better so I can face the TV just right, I'd turn into one of blob-people from Wall-E.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There have been very few improvements in the theater experience
You also do not have to deal with those parents who decide that they really really want to see Saw 4627 (or whatever number they're up to now) but they cannot find a babysitter — and obviously cannot wait for a night when they CAN find a babysitter — so they take their little six-year-old child with them. That is always a fun experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There have been very few improvements in the theater experience
On a side note, I can't believe the condition of the theaters in my area. They are always filthy, and I'm always sticking to things. Plus, the chairs reek. I actually worked at a theater when I was in high school, and we had to sweep AND mop theaters in between rushes. (That's what you called them, 'cause all of the movies started within 30 minutes of each other.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a bunch of garbage!
The last time I went to see a movie, nobody turned off their cell phone or BlackBerry. This guy clearly doesn't know what he is taking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a bunch of garbage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a bunch of garbage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sharing" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".
Each side of the aisle uses words that they believe promote their positions in public discourse. To pillory one side for the word it chooses to use without noting the other side engages in the same activity is in my view a bit dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I made only a two part comment. You picked one without noting the other, which was an integral part of my comment.
Summarizing the totality of my comment, "theft" is used by one side and "sharing" by the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aside from the public, but no one pays attention to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From merriam-webster: (ironically enough, they won't let me copy and paste the definitions)
Theft: the act of stealing; specifically; the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Share: to divide and distribute in shares
Now, one of those definitions fits, and one doesn't. Lets see if you can figure it out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, if enough people keep dividing the file to take their share, then the next thing you know all I'll be streaming are millisecond-long bleeps.
I guess you could trade the pieces, make copies... wait! *That's* the word we're looking for. Copy! We make copies, we distribute copies, we allow copies to be made.
Excuse me now, I have to go share some paperwork with the office Xerox machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The big question is how did we allow sharing to become a criminal thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When we allowed those who missed preschool and failed kindergarten to run things. I suspect they were the bullies and always got into fights instead of learning how to have fun on the playground.
When I was a kid, I'd get yelled at for not sharing my things. Then again, I was from a large family and we shared everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infringement really isn't theft. You are not taking away anything.
When we talk about file sharing, the term works just fine. This is because "sharing" does not necessarily imply you don't have access to the resource you are sharing. If I share a cab with you, I still get where I am going. If I share a thought with you, I still have the thought. If I share a file with you, I still have the file. I might even share the file by creating a "shared file" (terms used in Linux, Mac OS, Windows).
If we talk about "sharing," it is absolutely true that the term does cover usages that are not infringement. All of the examples above cover perfectly legal examples of sharing (assuming the file I share with you is mine to share to begin with).
So to summarize: Theft cannot by any stretch cover infringement as it simply doesn't describe what is going on. Sharing absolutely describes what is going on, but perhaps intentionally ignores the issue of the legality of what is going on.
Sadly, most of the mechanisms put into practice to stop infringement do so by limiting file sharing. And I use that last term literally, since the limits fall equally on both on infringement and on actual legal sharing.
When people like myself worry that "file sharing" is being targeted by the likes of Big Content, it is most accurately described as "file sharing" as the impact of their policies are exactly an attack on "file sharing" both legal and illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Playing games with language does nothing but slow down the eventual resolution to the debate....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For one side to bellow "theft" and the other to bellow "sharing" diverts attention from the real issues at hand.
In courts of law these two words fall by the wayside because the issue is always "Are the acts complained of infringement within the meaning of copyright law?" They do not detract and take the court's attention away from the matter at hand.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in ordinary public discourse. Tempers flare and nothing is added to the conversation as each side hunkers down behind its chosen word. It sorta reminds me of trench warfare from WWI. Lots of shots fired, but no ground gained by either side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Infringement accusations detracts attention from the principal point and that is sharing is in general a good thing that creates more opportunities that it destroy them, sharing is what allow us as a group to progress and move forward how did we let it be transformed into something illegal?
How did we allow monopolies to become so strong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Infringement" and "Theft" are both laws that are broken. "Infringement" can occur during "sharing", but "theft" cannot. If a person has a picture sitting near their window, and I take a photo of it, is it "theft"? No, certainly not. It may or may not be "infringement", depending on if it was a picture of Elvis or the Mona Lisa, but it would only be "theft" if I actually reached in the window and took the picture.
The fact is, using the term "sharing" is accurate, while "theft" is actually a form of propaganda, as is "freetard" and whatever other names you care to use. These terms have derogatory connotations on an emotional, rather than rational, level.
One of the ways I can judge that I am on the right side of this arguement is, when dealing with the other side as a whole, the term is "copyright maximalist." I don't see any negativity, emotional or otherwise, in that term.
But maybe that's because I'm just a freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think if you look back at my comment, you'll note that I specified that I was talking about actual infringing sharing, so not sure why you think I'm wrong?
"The fact is, using the term "sharing" is accurate, while "theft" is actually a form of propaganda, as is "freetard" and whatever other names you care to use."
Simply saying "sharing" to describe an act of infringement is no more accurate than calling it theft. Pretending otherwise is silly....
"One of the ways I can judge that I am on the right side of this arguement is, when dealing with the other side as a whole, the term is "copyright maximalist." I don't see any negativity, emotional or otherwise, in that term."
Uh, you don't? The "other side" likely have degrees of opinion difference every bit as nuanced as our side. To label them copyright maximalists not only is innaccurate, but the maximalist term also has negative connotations to it. I'm surprised you don't see that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Splicing, dividing, parting?
What I see is a group of people creating a set of imaginary rules that in fact turned human nature into something illegal.
How else do you define that?
Is the law the new moral compass that society should fallow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting typo given that 'to lie fallow' means to fall into disuse ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In answer to the question about sharing, simple logic. An elephant is an elephant if it's gray or blue. Saying, "Don't call it an elephant if it's gray, only if it's blue" doesn't make any sense, and I think you can see this. Sharing is sharing, whether it is infringing or no.
I applaud your effort to find common ground with Those Who Consider Current Intellectual Property Protections Inadequate. But ya gotta make sense, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That legal concepts will somehow override human nature?
That legal concepts take precedence against social needs?
Make no mistake sharing is a social need, it is one of the pillars that sustain all societies. It is the thing that allows group of people to achieve greater things, to create markets and thus real wealth.
So thus not seem just a bit odd that we turned something so important into something illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See? So now both sides can be right. You're welcome. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure anyone who made a mixed tape got a sky mask and guns to forcible take money from a secure bank probably shooting security guards on their way out.
That makes complete sense to me now.[/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's Bolshie talk right there. Damned pinko...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I liked the part where...
Right guys? Right...?...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
I think you meant "wring". =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would anyone listen to that stupid, lying POS?
I sometimes think I would pirate things myself, but there just really isn't anything worth pirating. All that trouble, just to watch low quality crap? Hell, I won't watch it for free, and most of it would require that I get paid to watch it, due to the enormous waste of my time. Screw the "entertainment industry" and their pack of lying puppets, and really shitty products!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would anyone listen to that stupid, lying POS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would anyone listen to that stupid, lying POS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
Sharing = Theft
Theft = Crime
Therefore:
Parent teaching kids to share = Criminal
Therefore
Me = very sad person upset with criminal parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the only place where sharing anything is authorized is inside a movie theater?
I'm confused, do I need to buy a ticked for a movie to share anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
emerging technologies like the Internet? Talk about being behind the times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie "theft"
And for the AC who said:
"Theft" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".
"Sharing" is generally used as a lay term for "civil and/or criminal copyright infringement (copying and/or distributing)".
If I take your Spice Girls CD, I've stolen it and you can't listen to it (and fap).
If I make a copy of your CD, you still have your CD and nothing has been stolen from you, but I do have a copy of some worthless drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dodd Shmodd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dodd Shmodd
...My straight face failed at 'smart'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Debunking
"NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording" Okay, camcording what? You need to be a bit specific. Also, does he actually mean that NATO soldiers are in our theaters watching us, probably armed? Or on the "front lines" of combat: so that's why America invaded Iraq! It wasn't oil or to topple Saddam, it was to stop camcording in cinemas!
"But I for one do not believe the sky is falling. Yes, people have a wider variety of entertainment options
these days. Yes, gas prices have gone up. But you have seen attendance ebb and flow in the past, and I believe audiences will be coming back to your theaters to see our films because there really is no parallel to the incredible experience that we, together, provide." If the sky isn't falling and you treat this drop in profits/attendance as merely a temporary thing, something that will more or less resolve itself without any effort on your part, then why are you so vocal about copyright infringement?
And about the 2.5 million workers...so technological innovation has to be crippled before it has a chance to sign merely because these people have jobs? What about when the automobile was invented, and thousands of people involved with horses lost their jobs? Should the car have been banned because some people lost jobs?
"When China limits the import of non-Chinese films to 20 a year, despite the fact that hundreds of U.S. films are produced each year – including more than 100 by the MPAA member studios – we are excluded from a market that presents huge untapped potential." What does that have to do with movie theft? Sounds like a problem for the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (or whatever the position is called in the US government)
"invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families." Are you going to charge admission? Or are these people going to...gasp...see a movie for free!
"I can’t put a dollar figure on it for you. I can’t give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic" You. Can't. Put. A. Number. On. It. What has the MPAA been doing for decades but putting dollar figures and unemployment figures. Just a couple of paragraphs ago, you said 2.5 million people would lose their jobs! This guy can't stay consistent from paragraph to paragraph!
And then the crap about cinema being the quintessential American communal experience. THE quintessential? As in, there is no other greater communal experience than being in a darkened room, staring at a screen for two hours and shutting up/annoying others? I don't know what's scarier, that it might actually be true, or that this guy actually believes this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Debunking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File sharing ruining community bonding?
Damn community. If it's not breaking things, it's stealing them.
Throw it in jail and toss away the key.
This will get people to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File sharing ruining community bonding?
This will get people to buy.
Or at the very least, they would have a captive audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phones
> and BlackBerrys.
If only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
camcords, not insiders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: camcords, not insiders
See also here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: camcords, not insiders
The second article jumps from a paragraph about India which says that 90% of pirated films are camcords to the study above which looked at movie releases worldwide. India has a unique movie industry and a different piracy lifecycle to many other countries: high quality pirated versions - yes, mostly from camcords - appear either the same day a film hits the theatres in the country or in some cases before. In the west, it's a good few days before the first camcords tend to show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: camcords, not insiders
Hollywood does seem to do it for certain movies but try to play it off as piracy. Not sure about now per se.
Regardless, I'm interested in your research as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Poor" Grips my ass
Oh yeah, really terrible pay scales, because the industry can't afford any better after all that piracy. And royalties are so significant... to the company that owns the marketing rights, maybe, but not to ANYONE else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi, teenager working my first job at the local theatre here. I'd just like to point out a few things:
1) We aren't part of the movie industry, we're a seperate entity that has distribution deals with the production companies.
2) Almost all of our money is made from food, because the production companies insist on taking nearly 100% of the profits from ticket sales. It's why theatre food is so expensive.
3) Piracy does not effect our business, because the people that would pirate a movie wouldn't have seen it if they had to pay for it anyway. What does effect our business, is Hollywood churning out terrible movies to make a quick profit instead of releasing quality films. The Devil Inside is a good example.
When Hollywood does this, people are more inclined to pirate. As Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem. If Chris Dodd and the MPAA has a problem with piracy, all they need to do is release good quality movies and more people will pay to see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]