Studios Apparently Would Prefer Searches Only Turn Up Pirated Copies, Rather Than A Legit Option

from the do-they-not-think? dept

Thu, Apr 28th 2011 10:26am — Mike Masnick

There have been some stories about how YouTube is preparing to work with a bunch of big movie studios to sell access to movies. It's been offering up some movies for a year or so, though it hasn't really caught on. The hope is that with big Hollywood pictures, people might care more. I'm not convinced it will be that big of a deal -- especially for folks who use Netflix -- but it's an easy enough thing to do. Except... apparently two of the major studios, Fox and Paramount, are balking at the deal, because they don't like that people can find unauthorized copies of their movies via Google's search functionality. This makes no sense. Basically they're saying they'd rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list. This is not how you "compete" with unauthorized versions.

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: movies, piracy, searches, streaming, studios, youtube
Companies: fox, google, news corp., paramount, viacom, youtube

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

jimbo, 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:35am

but it could be a more profitable option. how many times has it been said that the reason there are so many law suits, is because it can get a studio more money than competeing in the real world. that is why it is so wrong that people have to prove innocence rather than the studios have to prove guilt!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:50am

Re:
That... may very well be the logic they're using.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re:
We're talking about movie studios and you're talking about logic?!? What past experience has led you to believe that they have any?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Well, they ran away from Edison when he start6ed suing, so there must be some somewhere. Maybe it got lost in the archives...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:11am

I know this has been said before but...

1. Lobby to make any public copies of your content illegal.
2. Secretly "leak" your content and make it go viral.
3. Sue everyone!
4. Profit!

This is like 1984 where the rebels against the government were actually run by the government. Sandbox your rebels and make them believe they're conspiring against you, but really they're just admitting their guilt to your agents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:16am

This makes sense to me.. They disapprove of youtube for whatever reason so they don't want to support it or partner with them for this deal. I do this all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:18am

Re:
In fact, I would say this is the way I would *want* them to act on their opinions about youtube's service, rather than trying to use more nefarious means to shut them down by manipulating legislation towards that end or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:45am

It makes no sense...
and yet, it's standard operating procedure. Like when J.K. Rowling refused to put out an e-book version of her popular series (whose name escapes me on purpose) because "piracy" would lead to lost sales.

Apparently, these two studios (and Ms. Potter) would rather have only unauthorized versions of their product floating around.

Whitey did the same thing as well when his demo was leaked. Sure, it's shitty but by not putting "Great Shakes" on the virtual shelves, he guarantees that only the pirated version exists. And that kind of sucks, because he is a truly kickass artist.

[Citations]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWgLBEvvMpA

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=LODDDFFIW5Q
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:50am

"Basically they're saying they'd rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list."

No, they are saying they are cheap and lazy sacks of crap that do not want to maintain their copyrights. They want to farm out all the actual work of protecting these works to the government and other corporations. The actual cost of policing these works will very soon exceed the monetary returns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:54am

I'm no longer a luddite! *pops cork
Having just upgraded my home entertainment system, the first thing I noticed was the options of my DVDs are now blocked, despite not having been such on the old player.

It amazes me this industry can put Twitter and Facebook on a goddamn BD player but can't prevent the FBI warning, now completely unskippable, from showing if the security layer is present.

Dear Hollywood: I hate you so much. I also hate piracy, but only because it hasn't put you out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 12:13pm

Re: It makes no sense...
Sure, it's shitty but... that kind of sucks, because he is a truly kickass artist.

ummmm....i suppose the subject is accurate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 28 Apr 2011 @ 2:38pm

Film and recording business plan A

1 release your content to "illegal sites"

2 Sue everyone on the flimsiest of evedence (or none at all)

3 Drive or cut as many people as possible of line

4 ISP become fewer

5 people get peed off with being sued and scammed for no reason, leave the web.

6 film and recording businesses say we knew it was a fad and the internet can be closed.

plan B as plan A (sarc)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 28 Apr 2011 @ 10:57pm

Re:
I guess they should have thought about the cost of enforcing their copyrights for life +70. You know, "be careful what you wish for", and all that. I seriously hope the cost of their greed buries them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 12:04am

Re:
Not likely to happen, because the internet industry makes MUCH more money than the recording and film industry put together.

If this is their plan, they had better get a new one, because more and more judges are realizing that an IP address is N O T personally identifiable information in CRIMINAL cases.... if they are realizing that in criminal cases, how long until they realize that in civil cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 7:47am

Re: I'm no longer a luddite! *pops cork
It amazes me this industry can put Twitter and Facebook on a goddamn BD player but can't prevent the FBI warning, now completely unskippable, from showing if the security layer is present

Yep, only the film industry could take a wonderful "new" technology, so much more convenient than a tape because you have instant access to any point of the content.... and make it so that doesn't work. Same as the legitimate TV streaming media - unskippable ads in the centre - I can skip them on my PVR player but not when I watch it online... Doh!

Can I suggest the answer to your dilemma is hooking a small PC to the TV instead of a vanilla DVD player and using the appropriate tool to prevent the stupidity?
[ link to this | view in thread ]