Entertainment Industry Still Can't Get Grassroots Support For SOPA/PIPA, Resorts To Trying To Buy Support
from the buying-support-is-all-they-know dept
We've written about CreativeAmerica a few times. This is the astroturfing operation set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be "grassroots." Of course, as we've noted, they can't seem to find very many supporters at all. In the entire month of November, when there was a ton of news about these issues, it appears that a grand total of 161 new people signed up for its letter-to-Congress offering. In contrast to that, folks protesting SOPA were able to get over a million emails sent to Congress and over 87,000 phone calls in just one day. And how did that happen? Because those of us opposed to SOPA and PROTECT IP just asked our communities, and they did so.The major Hollywood Studios do the same... and they get 161 new supporters over an entire month. It's kinda pitiful, but it really shows how little the public supports Hollywood in this campaign to censor the internet.
Either way, it appears that Hollywood is now trying to do what it does best: buy support. Since its efforts to just rally the troops directly has failed miserably, it's kicking off a big ad campaign, buying TV commercial spots on both broadcast and cable TV. The commercial itself is incredibly misleading and repeats a bunch of the standard myths:
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: astroturfing, copyright, grassroots, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: creativeamerica
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although as an artist, I don't mind doing work-for-hire - after all, copyright doesn't really protect me or my works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You offend people and expect support?
Yah right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is called the democratic process, we are not yet living in communist China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If 300 million stand to benefit from ignoring copyright law then it should be abolished. The justification of copyright is only that the 300 million benefit (at least indirectly). If you admit now that they don't actually benefit then you have absolutely made the case against copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If 300 million stand to benefit from ignoring copyright law then it should be abolished. The justification of copyright is only that the 300 million benefit (at least indirectly). If you admit now that they don't actually benefit then you have absolutely made the case against copyright.
-------------------
You went IRREDEEMABLY off the rails by substituting "copyright" for "freeloading". The 300 million who don't produce the content benefit from it being produced. You wish to remove the legal protections that /allow/ expensive products to be made (garage bands don't count) by having an exclusive on its distribution. Without that (practically) guaranteed, the whole system will collapse. -- A frequent assertion, you (standardly) scoff? Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present -- and still can if people would respect the rights of others -- as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
False Dilemma. Content will be created without IP laws and I'd be more than glad to have whatever content IP is responsible for producing not being produced if IP is abolished. It's a 'risk' I'm more than willing to take, my freedom to freely copy is more important to me than the (alleged) value of whatever content that results from IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you credit one song or movie to them?
Example: Written by **AA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Turns out it was made by the SPA tho =)
And yes, if your sarcasm detector did not go off, i suggest checking the batteries. just to be clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I replaced a loaded, emotionally charged word with an objective one. So I went of the rails by trying to make the discussion more rational and less of an emotional rant. Sorry - you are the one who is off the rails not me.
If the 300 million can be persuaded that it will benefit them (by allowing expensive things to be produced) then you will win the argument - good luck with that.
My thesis is that the 300 million don't actually WANT the expensive products - or not enough to pay for them - so under those circumstances they should not be produced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Content doesn't need to be expensive to create.
Also copyright doesn't need to last forever. And you can still make money on stuff that's not covered by copyright anymore. You can still sell it.
What system? The system that creates content? That's nonsense, people don't need copyright to create works, as the past has proved, with works being created long before the first notion of copyright existed.
"Intellectual property" isn't actual property. And the idea that it is has harmed us more than it has served us.
Copyright holders aren't necessarily the content creators. And vice versa.
And why don't garage band count? How are they less than those big named bands? (remember, U2 started in someone's kitchen)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is where most copyright extremists lose most people. Like it is some inalienable right. It is NOT. It is a TEMPORARY INCENTIVE to assist those in creative fields. That is how society in general views it, that is the terms under which we agree to abide by it. The more the big content industries try to force it into another definition and change the terms of the "contract" with society (regardless of how many member of Congress they can buy off to make laws that favor them) the more people will ignore it.
Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present
And who's fault is that, really? Who is it that has been continually twisting the terms of the agreement for the past 75 years or so? We agreed to a temporary incentive. They keep pushing it to a permanent guarantee, which we increasingly reject. The byproduct of which is that copyright gets increasingly ignored. had they just left the agreement alone, they might be doing better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As is this" "as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it." There is nothing in the statue of Anne, the original US copyright laws derived from it or anything that has followed in the English speaking world that speaks of "moral rights" indirectly or directly. Once again....copyright came about largely to protect English publishers from bankrupting themselves by issuing multiple editions of a title by an author all at the same time. One or more of whom might, just might, have tossed the author a coin or three. It's secondary intent was the promotion of education from which it's possible to derive that walled gardens of copyright were NOT intended, though in many ways that's what we have and THEN to provide the author with the possibility of earning a few coins. There is no guarantee of that, practical or otherwise, as the book may not sell diddly squat in which case the author is on the hook for any advances and other investments the publisher may have made in them.
(The same risk applies to the granting of a patent. Just because you have a patent doesn't guarantee that anyone is the slightest bit interested. There are thousands of them collecting dust that no one, other than the inventor perhaps, has ever turned into a product.)
So it's clear, even to a moron in a hurry, that copyright and/or patent law was never intended as a welfare scheme for authors/creators or those they signed the rights over to as you seem to think. Along with entities such as the RIAA and MPAA and others.
You also persist in the fiction that signing these rights over to a publisher is an agreement freely entered into by two equal and willing parties. The reality is that is you want your book published (or a fictional movie distributed) you must sign your rights over to the publisher or it's not going to get printed/distributed. In strictly legal terms this is called signing a contract under duress. AFAIK it's never been found that way in court because the applicable copyright laws and regulations allow for this. That doesn't change the fact that the parties are equal or that both parties are willing as one is essentially forced into the arrangement.
Unless, you self publish/distribute. The latter as Mike has repeatedly pointed out has been made so much easier with the advent of the Internet, things like file lockers, the evil and wicked bittorrent and a host of other technologies. None of which insist on signing your copyright over. None of which negates or diminishes copyright despite what you seem to think.
They might, however involve a bit more work. As a publisher will demand that work anyway you may as well just do it yourself. (In the form of book tours, band tours, subjecting yourself to endless interviews with bored and totally disinterested reporters, signing books and stuff till your arm is ready to fall off and so on.)
As a total and complete aside, though you brought it up, bands such as U2 got their starts in a garage not a stadium. It then follows logically and realistically that garage bands do, in fact, count.
What Richard is saying, in reality, is that if the citizenry has removed its support for, and by extension, support of copyright then it IS time to goes. Not that I want to see that outcome but that WILL be the case if maximalists like you don't compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Solid foundation to live by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a Guess
On the one hand there are the merchandise producers who have a real cost to make copies of their product and are at risk of monopoly charges from the Government, and on the other hand you have intangible producers with little or no cost to making countless copies of a single effort/event and want monopoly privilege enforced on the "copy technology" (another "real" product which they did not invent) by the Government. So they can sit on their collective asses and collect money for a "one time" effort. The working public who have to make an effort 24/7 to collect an income are sick and tired of that. Just a guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, saw this on TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- They need to conflate piracy with other things that are more serious because not even them believe their claims are strong enough on their own.
- They keep using the same language over and over trying to make it acceptable when most people just get pissed off by it.
Stopping piracy by encouraging censorship is not an option.
Stopping piracy by damaging other legitimate business is not an option.
Stopping piracy by forcing others to do your job is not an option.
And I am starting to think that piracy shouldn't be stopped but encouraged, that way everybody would be able to get a shot at making some money instead of the holder of a monopoly that shouldn't be that long to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confuzzled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...there are no IP laws that protect ideas, American or otherwise, and there are none that could unless the law enforces mind control.
Also, if you're referring to innovative things like patents, look to American history and ask where we got a bunch of our innovative patents - oh, yeah: we stole them from the British.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies get in with the expertise and know how and the US Army with the installations and money to pay both.
Have that been tried yet?
I know for a fact that the government can screw up things badly once they get their hands on a business, that is why they need to provide only the physical installations and the security protocols the management of the rest will be by the other half of the coin.
It has the advantage that it will produce the parts in loco and use local human resources which means local jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess that explains the "Camouflage Gift Wrap" option on Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the way it used to be - until the lobbyists got into the system.
Thankfully it remains the case with nuclear weapons...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this country X donations = Y number of votes, and it shouldn't be like that at all. The votes themselves should be all that matters, and the donations should come mainly from voluntary donations from real individuals, with a cap on how much they can donate to prevent "abuse".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
Oh, and QUIT wasting time on such posts. You've still got a lot of work to do on "Step2: ?????". (I'm using that for a while, since can't hope for you to explain your movie example, after 4 years, and idiot fanboys gleefully dodge my point with it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
If you want a custom solution from Mike I'm sure he'll be happy to sign on as a consultant at the usual inflated consultancy rates with 50% up front (pretty much standard), hand it to you and you won't get all that much that's different than you've gotten here. It all involves that dreaded four letter world beginning with W and ending with K. Something you appear to be allergic to.
Anyway, you've not given anyone enough information to give you anything but the most general response. All you've told anyone here is that you want to make a movie and it'll cost $100 million to make (a suspiciously round number and probably just pulled out of the air). I wouldn't invest in that much less offer any advice. Nothing at all about your background, if any, in film making or videography, experience in directing, screen or play writing, not even the broadest notion of the plot line (after all there are only 7 general plot lines possible), experience in editing and cutting and on and on it goes.
IF you came to me with a pitch like that I'd kick your ass out the door.
So you're not being dodged, the question itself is lacking so much information it's impossible to answer in any meaningful way. At least meaningful for you.
So I'll pass on a freebie. WORK on making a pitch and leave your over sized attitude, sense of entitlement and ego in the parking lot. Perhaps the next three towns away, in your case. Come with a CV and a believable figure complete with a cost breakdown TO THE PENNY, and maybe, just maybe as you're a total unknown in the industry (even porn, I assume) someone might be interested. I wouldn't count on it though. Hollywood has been counting its nickles and dimes since a disaster called "Waterworld".
So in the end, you'll get what you've gotten now, lower your expectations, don't expect to make a blockbuster first time out, get some experience and DO IT YOURSELF. Save the hundred million dollar stuff till you have some experience.
Now toddle off or take a valium or both until you have something new and remotely constructive to contribute.
At the moment you're nothing but a troll and I just fed you. I sincerely hope it tasted horrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God, you're like an idiot child, bitching just to hear your own nonsense.
---------------
My success is measured by the number of dolts who resort to mere ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can confirm now that you are now, perhaps the most successful person in the history of mankind, and that success shows no sign of peaking just yet.
Kudos to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes OOTB, you are indeed, a legend in your own mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However what we usually see is "ootb says X, which is stupid, and therefore he is an idiot".
Careful examination shows that this is, in fact, the exact opposite of an ad hom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heck, if hosting a slot machine next to your house (without a license) is illegal then this should be even more illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:52pm
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Populat videos.
The earliest video is also very useful, as it shows people how to stream films - it's a good thing that sort of thing isn't against the law otherwise the MPAA could be in trouble...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have an Advertising Standards Authority in the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-- President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dudes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dudes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dudes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nugent-Dudes
I work as a grip in the movie business, under union contract. The vast majority of us derive no pension, benefits or any other kind of income from residuals. I am theoretically eligible for a small annuity but the chances I will ever qualify for it are slim, and as retirement income it amounts to a pittance. Most of the people who do derive significant income from royalties/residuals (producers, directors, some camera department) are fairly well off and well paid to begin with and have other retirement investments to take care of them. The exception is actors, many of whom are low to middle income and derive significant income from residuals. I'm not sure about writers.
The truth is the vast majority of film workers get little or nothing from residuals.
I'm a real person too. I don't have a lot of money and stricter copyright enforcement isn't going to change that, but at least I have a free Internet (for now)
BTW: I've witnessed a lot of said producers, directors, actors, camera dept. etc. engage in casual sharing of DVDs and music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infomercials
If only it wasn't ... real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]