MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'
from the and-it-shows dept
There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong." After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC. And it got slaughtered. We've already discussed our thoughts on why the MPAA failed, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were. Whether it's just blaming Google or thinking that the solution is more backroom dealing, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.The Hollywood Reporter's version of the postmortem is a good read, even though it covers much the same ground as many other such recaps. Still, it's worth reading to get a good feel for Hollywood's view of the world. But the really stunning part is the quote from Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's number two guy, who makes what may be the most tone-deaf statement we've seen to date in this fight:
The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was out-manned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."Yes, even when he tries to say that they're trying to learn about that confounded internet thingy, he sounds ridiculous and dismissive. But the real point is his inadvertent admission within that statement: the MPAA (and the rest of "old" Hollywood) simply "is not comfortable with" the internet. And that's really what SOPA and PIPA were about. Rather than trying to understand this new platform, and learn from the many entertainers who do get the internet, they did what the MPAA does and simply tried to regulate that which they don't understand and fear.
Furthermore, even more ridiculous is the end of that sentence: "an opponent that controls that platform." As the article makes clear, he means Google. Which shows that he still doesn't get it. First, Google didn't lead the protests. It came late to the game, after the grassroots had already taken off with this stuff and run with it. But, more to the point, contrary to what O'Leary and the MPAA seem to believe: Google does not control the internet. No one does.
This, of course, explains why the MPAA wants to "negotiate" with Google these days. But that's not going to work. The folks on the internet don't want a backroom deal, whether it's negotiated by Google or someone else. Either way, this suggests that the MPAA is desperately in need of new leadership. They need leaders who don't try to regulate that which they admit they don't understand. They need leaders who aren't so clueless as to think that Google controls the internet (or that Google is somehow "the enemy"). And, really, most important, they need leaders who recognize and understand that the internet is their future too -- and any leadership needs to not fear the internet, but understand it and learn to embrace it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the MPAA is going to find such leadership any time soon.
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: control, michael o'leary, pipa, protect ip, protectionism, sopa
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Am I the only one picturing a bunch of execs in suits who keep getting held back in second grade and don't understand how all the other kids grasp the internet in one short class?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA learning the internet?
I think the first thing MPAA should learn was how much money the internet makes for them personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15542210641.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Twitter. This way, your ridiculous commentary isn't drowned out by the flooding of the crocodile tears. Leave the acting of emotions to Kristen Stewart, star of the Twilight series.
I'm always appreciative of a business terrified of Google, who must deal with the FTC and their rules of "We want you to block rogue sites, but if you program that, we'll charge you with anti-trust violations for limiting the results."
Let's hope that IF the MPAA learns how to use the internet, they'll educate our even less knowledgeable government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really. Our major advantage is that they do not understand the digital terrain.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
KITTEH!
Kitty kitty kitteh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet is to the MPAA/RIAA what Communism was to J Edgar Hoover. No matter how much they try to "understand" it, they will never be able to effectively use it, because behind the internet is an ideology they simply cannot embrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to let go...
But look in the eyes of the MPAA. Don't you see that wild disregard for the profits? Can't you see the hurting hypocrisy as they complain that people "just want free stuff?"
No... We have to hold down this organization. Take away its tentacles, the 2.2 million jobs, the $58 billion dollar profits, and the ability to destroy platforms. And though it brings a tear to my heart, we have to say "Adios"...
And pull out our Colt 45, shoot the MPAA in the head, take out a cigarette and walk off into the sunset with a tear in our eye. It's the humane thing to do.
*The End*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to let go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to let go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to let go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
My biggest question about SOPA was who is going to pay for this? The entire process oozes socialism.
I guess the 2008 financial crisis made America okay with socialism, since the bail outs are/were, as Lawrence Lessig put it "the stupidest form of socialism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
SOPA is about as far from Socialism as it's humanly possible to get.
The 2008 bailouts, likewise, were not Socialism. That was crank capitlism at it's absolute raging worst.
Socialism is putting the People fist - not banks, not corporations. Under Socialism, arsehole executives wouldn't be able to pay themselves millions while exploiting and firing their workers, banks would be directly answerable to their customers, and all health care would be free at point of use.
Socialism does not mean what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
Take your time.
Socialism does not mean what you think it means.
Conversely, a capitalist invests capital in a venture, at some risk, in exchange for commensurate return. There's nothing in there about, "having the government steal money from people to cover my bad gambling choices with vapor assets that never existed."
Capitalism doesn't mean what you think it means, either.
Sure is a nice world you live in, though. How far from Earth is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood: Jealous Socialists
How's the view from all the way out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fast, not free
Napster --> iTunes is the perfect example. Once Napster launched, it seemed that people just wanted free music. Granted many did, but if you give people an easy way to legally purchase music they will -- to the tune of roughly 20 BILLION songs song on iTunes. Do the same with movies, instead of these horrible "windows" and geo-restrictions, and the same thing will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fast, not free
Can we add "truly ubiquitous" (read: open) as a criteria as well? I've had digital conversations with recently signed musicians about downloading their content in a lossless format and they apologize that their new label only sells physical disks and lossy format downloads.
Guess who I'm still not listening to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fast, not free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fast, not free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fast, not free
If that is proven in court with appropriate due process, no problem. Of course, it won't solve any copyright holder's problems if it's shut down, or the operators fined or jailed. That's one major issue for me: this is all futile.
Until people are willing to understand the need for copyright protection in some form,
We're still waiting for someone to prove that copyright is needed.
We want groups like MPAA to be both reasonable and partner with us but we need to show maturity also and respect for their concerns.
When their concerns are deserving of respect, yes. Right now they're concerned with lobbying for increasingly draconian laws, and curtailing everyone's freedoms in order to avoid adapting their business model. Why should we respect that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fast, not free
Copyright is needed because that's how I make my living--I tell stories, people pay me for them. Most will do so even if there are illicit downloads.
However, if those illicit downloads are considered perfectly okay, then people will have trouble paying me for my stories, because they won't know they're mine.
This means I'll be working for months on end to entertain people, for no return. In which case I'll stop doing it.
This is even more significant if I were writing nonfic for educational or development purposes, which required lengthy research or experimentation, costing money out of pocket. Without a process for recouping the work, it's not worthwhile.
The intellectual monopolies (limited in duration) that Jefferson came up with created an explosion in development, as patronage was no longer needed.
But hey, if you like patronage from nobles, go right ahead.
In my experience, those who argue against copyright tend to be retards who are incapable of creative endeavor, hoping to benefit from the fruits of their betters.
This doesn't mean (c) should be eternal. But a creator is certainly entitled to income from their work, and a means to stop others from using it illicitly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fast, not free
This means I'll be working for months on end to entertain people, for no return. In which case I'll stop doing it.
What you're missing is that there are ways to profit from creating content other than by selling copies of it.
In my experience, those who argue against copyright tend to be retards who are incapable of creative endeavor, hoping to benefit from the fruits of their betters.
You're not likely to ever understand their position if you assume they're retards and inferior to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fast, not free
You don't have to take sides with Megaupload to believe that the government's actions against them were completely unwarranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fast, not free
You're smoking crack.
The MPAA sees EVERYBODY as walking wallets. They don't want to partner with anyone, they want everyone's money. Every single person is a target to them.
You can't co-operate with a predatory organization.
If the MPAA were to completely fire their entire leadership and hire people with a completely different mentality (pro-consumer, pro-open internet, anti-legislation) then maybe.
Otherwise, it's a waste of energy to even try.
The MPAA should fear us, always. The internet has its own wrath, and groups like the MPAA/RIAA mean DEATH for the internet. For legitimate users and file-sharers alike.
P.S.
File sharing is not stealing. Period.
Stealing is depriving an individual of the original possesion so it cannot be sold by them to make a living.
File sharing merely takes a copy of that information, depriving the original owner of nothing. (And if you assume that every file "shared" equates to what otherwise would have been a "sale", you're delusional, that's the same argument the MPAA/RIAA make in court cases.)
This is why they can never co-exist with the internet. Better just to disband the MPAA/RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fast, not free
Effectively, you've traded one form of subsidy for another.
Thank god Amazon was big enough at the time to release plain-jane MP3 files to "convince" other companies go DRM free as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They gavea inflated number of $250 Billion as what they lost from Piracy. The US people most likely spend more than that much on the internet in a few days. When you add in American Major Business making large orders for basic material, they use the internet to organize more money than that in a just a few hours!
I bet most of the MPAA's legal orders for their movies went through the internet most likely several times before they were finially bought by a consumer using Amazon or Ebay!
Major Emergency systems are also connected to the internet, like electrical power, fire, police, Federal Emergency services, even traffic lights!
The other business companies should be very, very concerned about that, not even with the problem with infringing on the 1st admendment of the US constitution, (a action that will really upset the entire US population).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this mean...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"WE KNOW!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA in denial
Yes, that's what this was all about. Adsense on illegal sites. Adsense to start is what, 10-30% of Google revenue? That includes most major web outlets. I can't imagine that even on the high end more than 1% of ads are on sites that the MPAA would deem "rogue." Maybe 1/10 of those are actual rogue sites dedicated to piracy. So 0.1% of Google revenue, at best, is from pirate sites.
So stay out of touch with reality MPAA. Live in denial, convince yourselves it was a single company manipulating the entire internet into supporting wholesome legislation, with only the valiant MPAA fighting the hordes of Google Zombies in order to preserve Hollywood, nay, society itself from being destroyed by the Evil Masterminds at Google. Sounds like a plot from...
Wait a second! It all makes sense now. The whole self-serving narrative that the MPAA has constructed is as transparent as a Hollywood storyline. And just as fantastical. That's why they're so into it, they think they're actors in their own adventure. My goodness, it's worse than I thought!
Get me rewrite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA in denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA in denial
The rest of the argument is spot on, but this line is ignoring MPAA 'logic', which is as follows: "Any site that is making money, and is either not run by us, or not paying us, is a rogue website".
So following that brilliant 'logic', most of the google's revenue is indeed coming from rogue websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MPAA in denial
The fact that collectively, they all don't have the IQ of an autistic 3 year old.
When someone deludes themselves with made-up "facts" and lies, which they themselves believe, who cares how they think? They're sick, they need fixing.
A bullet to the temple should do nicely, then send them the bill for the bullet. Just like is done in China when executing criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MPAA in denial
Off-topic, but autistics aren't stupid. They might collectively score lower on an IQ test, I don't know, but that's not a great measure of intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An opportunity...
And the rest of us can safely ignore what Google agreed to, because they in fact don't control the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An opportunity...
Except that X will boil down to "stop piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An opportunity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O'Leary is clueless
An opponent? WTF? Does he think he's up against Skynet?
Mr. O'Leary, I've got news for you, you're not just up against one opponent. If I may paraphrase the great poet Jay-Z, "You've got 9,999,999 problems and a bitch aint one."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: O'Leary is clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
**AA leader's problems
Dodd gets his marching orders from a small group of fatcats who have nothing but contempt for the public. And as log as Dodd has to relate to them, he will be unable to relate to the public, and be unable to understand the internet. They are just too different.
In 20 years, when the senile power-mongers are put out to pasture, this will be a non-issue. Assuming that we don't lose here and now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: **AA leader's problems
The real question is how bloody will that victory end up being?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He didnt say they were uncomfertable with the internet as a whole (even though they do seem like it). What he did say was that they are uncomfertable taking a fight on the internet. Thats 2 completely different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform." "
It's obviously the platform that they are not at this point comfortable with. It whole lot simpler to say This is a fight we are not comfortable with if the platform is not the cause of the discomfort.
Not sure who their opponent is supposed to be, I assume that's probably just a lame attempt at villifying google, but if they are talking about the electorate then they are spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am Just a simple Caveman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Internet 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Internet 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Internet 101 and it's children
To get them to the point where they can realize it's a digital network run mostly using open source software (which just has to be the height of piracy cause no one pays for anything yet somehow makes money so it has to be from Google and its ads) rather than good old closed source and that it's really a commuinications medium not for entertainment alone...well, I could go on but it gets both complex and ridiculous.
The answer, of course, it to have these fat cats talk to their preteen grandchildren who understand it just fine, thank you, and will explain it. All except for the piracy part cause they, too, are freetards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Negotiate???
Copyright was originally for 14 years, now it is much longer. Is the MPPA going to agree to restore copyright to its original intent and duration? I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its game over for hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
There are millions of people out there who regularly use the internet for things and don't have a clue how it works. The day that "google" became a verb, as in "I'll just google it", Google did become the internet to many of these folks.
I'm on the faculty in a program for training network techs and many of these folks start out the same way. When in their intro course we ask them to open a web browser, they say "Oh - you mean I should start the internet" and when we ask them to use a search engine to look for xyz, their eyes glaze over until we tell them to go to Google or Bing.
Hopefully by the time they leave we'll have fixed these problems, but it's just an indication that most "internet" users have this view of the on-line world because when they start up their browser it automatically displays the Google home page or at least has a search box built into the tool bar at the top that's hooked to Google.
We have done this to them. We have no one to blame but ourselves for giving them this narrow view of the 'net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
/mandatory car analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
/mandatory car analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
It's infuriating the number of people who don't know the difference between the address box and the Google search box. I can't count the number of people I've seen type a web site URL into the Google box, then look through the search results.
We have done this to them. We have no one to blame but ourselves for giving them this narrow view of the 'net.
The problem goes much deeper than that and extends to virtually all aspects of computing.
Because ISPs usually set up a web-based email account for users, most people think that that's what email is. They have no idea that you can install an email client with many more features that responds much faster than any web mail site.
Because most every program automatically saves stuff to My Documents, nobody today has any clue how to find the files if the program doesn't go right to them. Nor do they have nay real idea of how to organize files, move files, etc. I blame MS and their unintuitive Cut/Copy/Paste functions for working with files. A two pane file manager makes it much easier to visualize where you're moving the files to, not to mention having buttons marked Copy & Move. True, you can open two windows and drag files between them, but most people never manually open a window. They only ever save files from inside other programs.
Because MS's picture and fax viewer automatically shrinks every picture to fit on the screen, people today have no concept of how large a 4 or 5 megapixel image really is. They think it's this little, web-sized image rather than being poster sized and they're confused when a web site or application says that the image is too large.
Because Windows now automatically pops up a box asking what you want to do when you insert a disk or a USB drive, most people today don't know how to open a window and manually browse to the required drive.
People don't know about file extensions because Windows hides them by default. They don't know about file sizes because Windows only shows you icons and filenames by default. They don't know about changing file associations manually because every program you install changes them automatically. They don't know how to edit the startup and can't understand why their system gets slower and slower over time.
Of course, nobody actually wants to learn any of this stuff. They'd rather have someone else do it for them, even if they have to pay that person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
However, just because many, if not most, of the people who use the 'net these days don't have a clue about how it works, just like many people who drive cars don't have a clue about how the internal combustion engine works let along their car's computer, that doesn't mean that folks who lack the knowledge of how things work should be allowed to pass laws concerning the usage of said things.
This is no different than just about every other situation where people sit in positions of authority and make laws, rules, and regulations about how the rest of humanity should behave. Would it be a good thing to have people on a school board if they weren't able to read or write? How about placing people into positions in a regulatory agency where they would write rules about how a particular industry has to behave when they have no experience in that industry?
If the people in these positions would do the ethical thing, they would either educate themselves in the particular area or resign for the good of their subjects. Do I think that the folks in the MPAA/RIAA and their cronies (both in and out of government) will want to learn how the 'net works so that they can make money off of it without destroying it? Not in my lifetime. It's easier and less expensive to simply file law suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
There have been any number of times I've made myself bleed by having to bite my tongue over being called in to solve a problem that only existed because the user of the system treats it as a magic box, simple problems that would have been easily solved if the user had even the faintest clue of how computers work.
In an era where people take pride in ignorance (how else could you explain books with titles like "X for Dummies" or "The Complete Idiots Guide to X"?) bad regulation of technology is pretty much the only way things can go.
While I'm generally against the idea of law as a way to solve a problem, perhaps we need a law that says no one is allowed to regulate some subject until they can converse about that subject with subject matter experts without those experts laughing, crying, screaming or vomiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back when they were trying to get the DMCA law passed, it got slaughtered by the rest of the big corporations when they figured out just how restrictive the original was going to be and what it was going to cost them each if it was passed.
Just about every major international corporation not involved with copyright came out against it and it died in it's first version. It was taken back to the drawing board and what we have today is the result of that redrawing.
Every once in a while they get so big for their britches in what they want, they forget they are a tiny portion of the GDP, not the major part they wished they were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you think they suddenly became willing to negotiate with Google and tech companies? All they see is a temporary setback in their long term strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe a mini-series though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This mindset will be difficult for Hollywood to overcome. Starting with (and possibly prior to) World War II Hollywood became the government's "go to" guy for propaganda and one-way broadcast mediums have been the norm. The internet, being a two-way communication system, tends to have an uncontrollable life of it's own concerning propaganda, you can toss something out there, but what actually ends gaining momentum may not be what you really intended. The internet demands more than a questionable statement repeated over and over again. By it's very nature, the internet requires sound logic, facts and proof or your propaganda will be pounced on like tuna fish at the crazy cat lady's house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just as there can be independent labels that are not part of the RIAA, there can be independent studios that are not part of the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a voluntary system, but...
Many theaters, especially chains, refuse to show movies that aren't rated. Many newspapers refuse to carry ads for unrated films. So releasing your film unrated can seriously hamper its distribution and chances of success. So can releasing a film with an NC-17 (and before that, X) rating, for the exact same reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Young People Track Web Protests Over Online Piracy Bills
“Cruise Ship Accident, Election Top Public's Interest”, Pew Research Center, Jan 24, 2012
(Emphasis added.) (Via New York Times, H/T Reddit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O'Leary said they weren't comfortable arguing on a platform controlled by their opposition. Which is clearly funded by Google; a giant mega corporation that makes billions on illegally grafted content.
Google tried to hide their funding of it, but they were lying:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_GOOGLE_LOBBYING?SITE=KTVK&SECTION=HOME&a mp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See my above comment because you aren't grasping it either. The internet isn't controlled by Google or anyone. Anyone can post a rebuttal to silly statements like I am doing now.
Which is clearly funded by Google; a giant mega corporation that makes billions on illegally grafted content.
Umm, what exactly was funded by Google? Sure, Google lobbies just like any other large company, so what? From what I read Hollywood has spent 10x more then the tech companies on lobbing for PIPA/SOPA.
Google tried to hide their funding of it, but they were lying:
How are they trying to hide it? Your link is to an AP article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you get your news from liars. Like Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I get my news from varied sources and quite a few (most main stream media outlets for example) are liars or at the very least liars by omission.
But, that is besides the point, do you have some sort of proof that the 10x figure is not true or are you expecting me to believe you sight unseen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politi cians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml#c512
http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112 -s-968/954311/total-contributions.table?party[D]=D&party[R]=R&party[I]=I&state=&cust om_from=07%2F01%2F2005&custom_to=06%2F30%2F2011&all_pols=1&uid=3073&interests-suppor t=C2200-C2100-C2000-C2400-C2600-C2300&interests-oppose=C5140&from=07-01-2005&to=06-30-20 11&source=pacs-nonpacs&campaign=congressional
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/6 8448_Page4.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/284618/20120119/lamar-smith-sopa-lobbying-campaig n-finance-congress.htm
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-anti-piracy-lobbying-targets-fbi-110622/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
Lobbying is Hollywood's world. Google's fighting to gain a foothold; though they seem to be finally figuring out that when you're against someone who relentlessly aggressive toward you as the media industries you're gonna have to do some lobbying yourself. The fact that "Google" managed to defeat Hollywood on this makes an interesting statement: Hollywood is a good order of magnitude more wasteful with their money than Google. Wait, did that sound like an insult to Hollywood to you, too?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://benton.org/node/111709
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here let me try:
Fuck you scumsucking pirate. Why don't you go create something instead of leeching off society by regurgitating the facts OTHER PEOPLE worked hard to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
WTF else does one have to do to get it thru your thick skull that you, too, could be making money off the Internet if you just adjusted your ways....people are willing to pay....they have shown that time and time again.
I just can't believe that you can look at your screen, and type those words blaming a huge corporation for your woes because 'little people don't matter'.
The Internet is here to tell you......WE DO MATTER.....so get off your high horse, and put up your wares. We will decide if they are worth paying for or not.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
All the Blogger accounts that give away music illegally? Google just ignores DMCA takedowns on them.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Yet another moronic analogy from a freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet another moronic analogy from a freetard.
Murderers don't eat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Twitter uncloaks a year's worth of DMCA takedown notices, 4,410 in all”, by Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica, Jan 27, 2012
(Emphasis added.)
There's the text of the DMCA, and then there's the practice of DMCA takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also this is not the same AC criticizing Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're an idiot. The DMCA DOES require sites to take down links to infringing content. Run along now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People don't get jailed because some asshole claims he lost his wallet, and sites shouldn't be taken down because some asshole says it may have his content.
It may in fact have his content, or mine, and I would hope a professional ISP would go ahead and make a correction, after checking to ensure it is the case. Many do.
But I don't take orders worth a damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Poor, poor argument. "uhhhh.... they pay you with piracy! Yeah, that's it! IT'S ALL GOOGLE'S FAULT!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And which Blogger accounts that give away music illegally? Oh, you mean the ones independent artists blog on and upload their stuff too? I guess it must be illegal to be an independent artist these days, too.
As for ignoring DCMA takedown notices once again, source please.
Now I know you don't have a source but I thought I'd ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, though, sometime around 5th grade you should have read that part of the Constitution about "innocent until proven guilty." Google is under no obligation to take down a page (assuming it's a page they host, which...oh, wait...) until a trial has been held.
Are you Michael O'Leary? You DO seem to think Google controls the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Funny how they lobby for it, right?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_GOOGLE_LOBBYING?SITE=KTVK&SECTION=HOME&a mp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The lesson here is not that the tech industry has millions of people blindly doing what it suggests," said Eli Pariser, former executive director of MoveOn.org and now a member of its board. "I don’t think Google will be able to count on all the people who took action on SOPA not to challenge Google when it does something that feels counter to the ethos of the Internet." Source
That is basically warning to both Google and Hollywood. The internet belongs to neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) The Internet is not funded by Google. It was originally funded by the US Government, but Google most certainly does not fund the Internet, otherwise they wouldn't need to pay for bandwidth would they?
3) There's a certain irony in your whining about a "giant mega corporation that makes billions on illegally grafted content" when giant mega corporations like Disney make billions on content they grafted from the public domain, and then they bribe legislators to perpetually and retroactively extend copyright.
[ 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:
Anyway, they sold out to Hollywood years ago.
So, it just has to be Google. The other baddie would be open source but but how do you demonize that to congress or anyone else?
Open WHAT???? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My downloads are unencrypted, and I offer three of them for free. That makes me, if I recall the quote correctly, a "Pixel-stained, technopeasant wretch."
Infringement is a problem, though not a life-threatening one. It is not "piracy." "Piracy" would be stealing my content and re-selling it under another name, or at least reselling it. Sharing it without my consent is not "piracy."
In most cases I benefit from name recognition, beyond the royalties I'd make on any particular sale, because that recognition increases sales on the next book.
Someone else debunked your math. I'll just settle for calling you on YOUR intellectual dishonesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think on 01/18/2012, it went down like this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think on 01/18/2012, it went down like this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, just...wow.
The internet and tech industries have literally given the MPAA the technology in order to make money from the internet (streaming, direct downloads, direct payments, etc) yet at every single turn, the MPAA turns them away and complains they are losing money hand over fist.
The MPAA refuses to change because they see change = loss of revenue. (when history has proven otherwise). They still believe they are immune to technological progression and they still want total control of their product like they did before the internet was around.
The genie is out of the bottle now. The more they try to buy laws to stop piracy, the more that the pirates will go underground and will be even harder to spot.
The internet has grown it's own 'immune system'. If there's a threat, the internet goes after that threat and, if needed, re-routes the flow of data around that threat.
The MPAA need to wake up and take a few lessons from their 5 yr olds, or they should disband and die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find ironic, though, is how they complain that they're "going up against an opponent that controls that platform". I would say they have it backwards; the Internet is going up against an opponent that controls Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Root of the problem
http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/Images/Murdoch.jpg
The world is changing, and the unregulated free market hyper-capitalist tycoons that are destroying our society are losing their stranglehold on the media they've been using to control the populace. They know their end is coming. They can see the day on the horizon when the governments of the world serve the people instead of the 'people' (corporations). They're not going down without a fight, though. They're going to expend all of their ridiculous amounts of wealth tearing down any forward thinking institution they can get their greedy little hands on.
This is the beginning of the technological age's version of a civil war. The 'class warfare' the conservative shills refer to isn't just an expression any more. It's only a matter of time before it goes from strong-arming legislators to outright bloodshed. I can see a lot of protesters going missing in the next few years. Mark my words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
http://www.copyhype.com/cdtsopalist/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
Good Lord, Hart has really gone off the deep end with this one. Even a cursory glance at the EFF's funding, for example, shows that Google's involvement is pretty much non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
doesn't seem like much negotiating going on in the UK. yet another 'behind closed doors' meeting with the entertainment industries and government. according to this post:
h**p://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industry-calls-for-broad-search-engine-censorship-120127/
if it goes ahead, what will the next step be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and everytime we find a site
YOU (MPAA) DO NOT DESERVE TO BE HERE....MOVE ALONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Number Two?
Is he the guy in charge of number two ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right... dream on
Yes lets all sit down to tea and cakes and hear the MPAA say how "Copyright should be eternal with absolute enforcement"
The MPAA has been serving Hollywood's interests for so long that they are totally out-of-touch with the rest of society and I just cannot see how they can muster up some Internet support... at least without bribing them.
I say again what I have said before in that if they want to tackle this "Internet thing" then they should fire Chris Dodd and to put in charge someone who can understand the Internet they aim to regulate.
The MPAA should well know that their future fights are going to get much harder and if they are to get anywhere they need both understanding and with truthful evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waking up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And one more thing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation
"This was a fight on a platform we dont control yet. We will now spend all our efforts to fight our opponents, by any means necessary"
opponent = customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they have almost complete government established control over most other information distribution platforms and they want just as much control over the Internet so that they can keep us clueless and fight for even worse copy protection expansion and extension and enforcement laws. They don't want anyone besides them having any media influence. Anyone else having influence or 'control' is a bad thing, and then they claim that this isn't about censorship.
By getting a greater presence in the online community he means getting a stronger means of censoring that which he doesn't like. He sees this as a fight that he has to win, one where he can get more bad laws passed as if our current laws aren't bad enough and anyone who resists or criticizes the completely one sided laws that he wants is an opponent to be overcome and censored. and he claims this isn't about censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See, all that technology has EVER given us is new ways to consume media produced by the entertainment sector. That's it. As such, all technology is absolutely useless without that media to access, and any technology company who doesn't hold that it is totally and utterly dependent on the entertainment industry is nothing more than a parasite dangerous to its host (the entertainment industry); actual quote: "The parasite [Google et al] will not be allowed to kill its host!"
I seriously would not have been able to imagine people this clueless existed if they didn't show up frequently to make themselves known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point being missed here by various AC's is that the Web gives people the tools to create its own content just as the Internet did before the Web existed.
Sure, some, perhaps even most, of the tools are still new and crude but that's a situation that won't last long. Already publishing to the Web has moved to and beyond the level of print.
Music tools have improved immensely the past three or four years to such an extent that someone with a mid-range desktop, some inexpensive tools and know how can set up a decent studio which is partly an explanation of the explosion of independent music the past half decade or so.
Non linear editors, video cameras and the spread of knowledge about how to do it has made independent film making more available and affordable to "the masses" far beyond the realm of LOL cats. (Nothing wrong with LOL cats though.)
This is what Hollywood doesn't understand. Or won't understand. The Web is about creation as much or more than it is about consumption of content.
Which explains, to a large extent, the "so what" attitude of Hollywood's "we provide the high quality content" attitude when the Web just as capable, or soon will be, without the "ownership" attitude and desire to build walled gardens, release schedules, geographic restrictions and on and on as Hollywood traditionally has.
And it's the Web that went dark. Not Google. The Web.
SOPA and PIPA weren't just threats to free speech and a danger to the Internet itself, they were threats to what the Web is. It's a medium of creation and consumption at the same time. It does both, unlike radio, television and the phonograph which are one way passive mediums.
The Web is a two way, active medium. No one controls it. No one owns it.
That's the power of the Web and the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To take this idea one step further, this goes beyond just the web. Their brains are hardwired into the traditional western way of thinking about arts: producers produce, consumers consume; bands play, fans listen; writers write, readers read. It's a rigidly unidirectional path from source to sink.
This results in various exercises in absurdity. Only the professional producers are allowed to own content, and "consumers" cannot truly create; any derivatives or compositions thus also belong to the creators of the original work, regardless of who actually made the thing in question. Fan-fiction belongs to the authors of the original work, not to the people that actually wrote said fan-fiction. Covers, mash-ups, etc. belong to the creators of the original material, not the ones who actually created the cover/mash-up/etc. Or so the conventional wisdom goes.
Technology is changing that; moving us in the direction of non-western models (traditional African music comes readily to mind). In this model, the line between producers and consumers is fuzzy at best. While it may not always be a 1:1 ratio, fans actively participate in the production of music at concerts, books and other works of literature, etc. Not only can "consumers" produce for other "consumers", but "consumers" even contribute material to "producers", resulting in a big feedback loop. That is the new reality, and as you can see it's making a lot of heads in Hollywood and the RIAA explode. As put in Dilbert, that popping sound is "a paradigm shifting without a clutch".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dumb are these retards that after more than a decade and a half they STILL DON'T GET IT?
Frankly, anyone that can't learn something so simple in sixteen years is never going to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know MPAA/RIAA - there will *always* be criminals - much of the media you put out deals and even glamorizes just that: Scarface, Good fellows and fine examples.
But there are many people who are more than willing to pay a fair price for digital media - I'm sorry, but you can't keep gouging per title, but you can make up for it in sheer quantity of sales. You have a goldmine, just not the savvy to mine it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation of "we're not comfortable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA Sees the Internet As Some Type Of New AOL?
Which is why they think they can control it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and what's most telling is that the 'solution' has nothing to do with Hollywood changing its behavior. It has nothing to do with Hollywood not getting more bad laws passed, it has nothing to do with correcting the existing bad laws (ie: reducing copy protection lengths and infringement penalties, making copy protection opt in and requiring all works to be stored in various LOC databases for others to reference and so that they can be released to the public when they enter the public domain, increasing false infringement takedown penalties, abolishing government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. Making the law so that it won't be too legally risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers, so that it won't be too legally risky and expensive for bakeries to allow children to draw their own pictures on birthday cakes). Their solution has nothing to do with them correcting Hollywood accounting or their own bad behavior, their solution is for them to blame everyone else for their failures and find new and deceptive ways to get more one sided laws passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they want public support they should apologize for the sad state of copy protection laws and seek to correct them. They should apologize for all the harm their Hollywood accounting has caused their artists and seek to compensate them back. But, no, an apology is out of the question because they aren't sorry for what they did and they haven't learned anything. Yet they expect to somehow get public support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That link is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how my old boss phrased it...
It was an eye opener. Here's what he said:
"Look, I hear what you're saying about email and the Web and all that, it's just... The Internet is computers. And actually, computers are just typing. And typing is for secretaries!"
Note that, in actuality, he did not know how to type. He had made sure that he didn't know how, so that he wouldn't ever be asked to do it, as a mark of his executive status.
So I showed him how to get his fave baseball teams scores every day off the "computer thing" in his office, and he was on his way. (That, and responding increasingly slowly to dictated responses -- via audio tapes -- to his email, which I'd had to print and put in his in box up to that point.)
Maybe someone should show the MPAA execs how to pull up baseball scores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comparing Dead with Alive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US corporate content needed to take out Megaupload before they got Megabox fully up and running.
What some one should do is startup a program like Megabox and give the real content creators a place to do their thing and make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA must die
I quit TV because of the lame advertising,they only get dumb old people buying their crap(boner pills,weight loss,exercise equipment) and the smart people now buy off the internet CHEAPER! and i now record my favorite shows.
they will try another DRM scheme next or change the name next year of the SOPA bill to "SAVE THE CRACK BABIES" bill to make you look bad for voting against it.
thats how hollywood/media works with "SPIN"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]