MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
from the 'scuse-me? dept
Sometimes I wonder if the execs who run the major copyright-related trade groups ever talk to actual people outside of their little bubbles. Because they say things that are so out of touch with reality that it's stunning. We already discussed the panel where the RIAA's Cary Sherman said that various ISPs will start acting as copyright cops by July, but some of the other statements on that panel are worth discussing as well. It was basically a panel of all the big copyright industry trade group associations -- the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA (software) and the AAP (book publishers).What was most stunning is the pure hubris of the MPAA's Fritz Attaway, who flat out claimed that only they can make content that people want:
"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."Actually, no, tons of others create content that people want to have, and it's the real reason you're struggling so much today. You're not used to competing with those outside your little club.
The folks on the panel (with the exception of the BSA, who famously flip flopped its views on SOPA) brought out the usual crap about how SOPA was defeated via "disinformation":
"Right doesn't always prevail," Attaway said of SOPA and PIPA. "This time, it didn't, because our opponents were able to energize a grassroots response. In my view, and I think all of us would agree, [the protest against SOPA and PIPA was spread] primarily through disinformation and spinning their interest in a way that captured the attention of a number of consumers."This is such a load of hogwash. The MPAA has been a master at disinformation campaigns throughout its history. It's why it's been able to continually ratchet up copyright law in its favor for decades. This is the same industry who declared that the VCR would kill it... and now whines that the home video market that wouldn't even exist if it had gotten its way is being decimated by the internet. Did some folks on the anti-SOPA side get some of the facts wrong? Yeah, but it wasn't a disinformation campaign. That's what the MPAA ran. And, the only reason there was some misinformation in the campaign against SOPA was because the MPAA went so far in its initial version of the bill (and make no mistake, the bill came from the MPAA), that people reacted to that. It's true that eventually some of the worst parts were removed and people who didn't realize that still referred to the original text. But it's not like they made things up wholesale. The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.
The article by Laura Hazard Owen at PaidContent notes that these association bosses are now finally talking of "engagement" with those who disagreed with them on SOPA, but they still are only thinking about industries -- not internet users. They have no interest in actually talking to the riff-raff they look down upon, but still expect to give them money. Maybe that -- more than anything else -- is their problem.
Also, don't think they're done pushing for bad legislation. The RIAA's Cary Sherman noted that the plan was to push for legislation that was less likely to rally up the grassroots again:
The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA. "The digital tsunami we encountered with SOPA and PIPA—we're not going to get the same kind of engagement when we talk about statutory damages or open works," he said. "We'll have the opportunity for a more rational discussion."You see, in Sherman's mind, any time anyone disagrees with the RIAA's stated position, that's no longer a "rational" discussion. But because "statutory damages" sound so boring, he's hopeful that they can pass even worse laws to make the already insane damages rates even more insane.
The whole thing shows, yet again, that these guys still have no idea what happened, and have no idea how to engage with the internet. It's sad to watch them flail around like this. If they'd only taken the time to actually use the internet and learn about it, perhaps they wouldn't always sound so clueless. But, of course, why would they use the internet? It's not like it even can produce any of the content they want...
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: content, fritz attaway, hubris
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still using misinformation
Chris Dodd used this as recently as the Attorney General meeting and I'm still amazed that he's gotten away with it. No one has had a public debate with him and this 2.2 million jobs number. It's beyond ridiculous. Also, these "industries" don't create, nor do they represent creator interests. That's the problem here. I look at these people and *all* of them represent gatekeepers who have no interest in what people want. They don't know how to enable access, merely limit progress. We need to remove the bottle out of their mouths and let them cry it out. No more government teat. If they want to have a "rational discussion" it's time for them to recognize that no one is interested in their spoiled temper tantrums.
And I for one know that I'm voting out the politicians that enable them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still using misinformation
Millions of us around the World want nothing to do with your greedy Industry.I made the definative documentary film on Jewish Life Before, during, and immediately after WW2.I did this without any signing to MPAA for this film.I share it with the World freely.
I do not need you RIAA or MPAA.We can exist without you.We will exist without you.And I Boycott anything that you do.You are Censored from my Wallet forever.I will buy your Content used somewhere or not at all.
For those interested in my Art or my documentary:
http://www.bigmeathammer.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still using misinformation
Your website is just fabulous, but it needs a bit of editing, for the same reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still using misinformation
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs031.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
I sometimes wonder if they will ever understand that it was the other way around, that the grassroots energized their opponents of their own free will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here it comes. A little in this bill, a little in that bill, a few more bills for our congress critters pockets.
"I remember thinking it would take a man six hundred years to tunnel through the wall with it. Old Andy did it in less than twenty. Oh, Andy loved geology. I imagine it appealed to his meticulous nature. An ice age here, million years of mountain building there. Geology is the study of pressure and time. That's all it takes really, pressure, and time"
That's all it takes really, pressure, time, and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality
Obviously they've fallen for their own con--repeated the lie so many times they've started to really believe it is the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Five comments in?
The MPAA must be in real trouble D:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
Keep fighting fellow Eagles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
Well, we have no choice now Bob. We will have to make you "disappear". Expect us tonight Bob, and make sure your ass is lubricated for the Google Probe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
* (It was the anal probe reference that made me think of it. Thanks GV) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
Where's my paycheck then!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
Where's my paycheck then!?
You haven't recoup'd yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
I'm sorry I'm the one that has to break it to you, silvercatcat, But I'm afraid Big Search is going to have to let you go. We've had a bad quarter, less people are searching for things lately. I heard Hollywood's UltraViolet is responsible. People just can't get enough of it. Oh, and QR codes in malls too, they've had MASSIVE success. They're going to be the death of our industry I tell ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
I work in the aerospace manufacturing industry. We make parts for those airplanes you jet around the country in.
We have nothing to do with watching movies (productivity loss), or listening to music (safety hazard).
We make parts that go into airplanes.
I read those laws.
Our industries don't even come close to touching each other, and yet, your laws were going to make my job as an IT Administrator way harder, with zero compensation for it.
Your laws were going to make it harder for communication between our customers and vendors.
We already have problems just from trying to keep information secure, so the hackers and terrorists can't get in and figure out how to build these planes...or how they are made to figure out how to attack best.
Not to mention the traceability required when performing that kind of manufacturing....to make sure the damn things don't fall out of the sky....
And yet, you wanted to pass laws that would affect the very thing that would allow us to be able to communicate this information in a timely manner....ALL because YOU don't want to evolve, and came in late to the game.
I am not Google.
I am an American Citizen, working in an American factory, providing American manufactured parts (metal to finished part) to companies across the world.
You, sir, are just the entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
They don't. It's just a silly ploy to derail the conversation cause being paid shills/dumb trolls they are they just don't have any arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
I'm sure I could find more, but that took a whole 20 seconds to find those
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
Classic cargo cult comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
Bob, I realize you are paid not to think, but explain to me exactly how someone doesn't realize that they're paid astroturfer? You're either a paid astroturfer or you're not, and you will likely know you are when you receive a paycheck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Five comments in?
They're a sad, pathetic bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
You guys must be really longing for the old days at this point, huh?
Grokster forever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
So far all piracy enforcement has done is demand settlement letters from a thoroughly ridiculous selection of individuals (and devices, don't forget that them laser printers are stealing our music industry). Somehow, the RIAA saw it fitting to give Mitch Bainwol more money. If piracy enforcement actually did its job with efficiency and accuracy it would be far less irksome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Five comments in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3-4 times? I haven't gone once in ten years! Why should I if I've got a theater at home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only We Can Make Content That People Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
Shouldn't that guy have said "The people want what we tell them to want!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only We Can Make Content That People Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not hogwash
There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity.
This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood. It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Can I have you're autograph? You're my second favorite troll--but only 'cause nobody beats *angry dude*
I find your comments insightful and enlightening. Would you happen to have some helpful links where I could educate myself about "Big Search, Big Piracy, and Big Hardware' and learn more about their billionaire political agendas?
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
I can hear all the people of the world cheering you and the MPAA on. Go Extreme Insanity, Go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
The billionaires have built, at no cost to the millionaires, lots of hardware and software that can be used to get the content out there for the consumer when he wants it, where he wants it and the way he wants it. But for some reason, the millionaires refuse the free services. Maybe there is a reason they are only millionaires and Silicon Valley types are billionaires?
I personally hope the billionaires win, because a win for them is a win for me. A win for the millionaires is a loss for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Sorry boB, the MPAA cornered the market on:
"preventing them(artists) from profiting on their hard work"
Big time, im on my way im making it... oh sorry got distracted there for a minute.
"This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood."
You see boB, this is the problem with your ilk. It was not about big anything. It was normal people being directed to a piece of legislation that goes against the principals of what this country was founded on, and the principles that the internet was based on.
You and your ilk cant get that because you have no principles.
When my mom calls me and says hey my neighbor just told me about this sopa thing and I read about it... I am 42. You just don't get what really happened there.
"Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware want to keep all of the revenues for themselves." - Cukoo cukoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Nice job Mike Hitler, you went back in time and aborted personal creativity. Now we'll never leave this planet and be forced to burn up when the sun explodes.
You blew it up, you dirty apes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
LOVE IT!!!
Masnick's army of satanist lord high piracy apologists. Gets better every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
That's how evil he is.
His mere presence causes artists to starve, kittens to implode and MAFIAA bosses to shit bricks.
And on top of that he is Hitler.
In face of this Satanic apocalypse, it becomes apparent to one and all that in this key moment in time, at the cusp of human existence, we need more draconian copyright laws so that we can sue lots of people out of all their money.
It won't stop the world from burning before Masnick's greedy gaze, but the figures for this quarter will be nice. And that, people, is a worthy cause. That, my brothers and sisters, is what America is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
I, for one, will be glad when the flag goes up; new uniforms, if they know my sizes! But I ain't 'sploding no kittens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Can you put some names to those? Unlike Mainstream Media, which seems to comprise less than 20 companies world wide, and "Hollywood", which comprises maybe 10 major studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio#Today.27s_Big_Six), and Big Pharma, which is maybe 12 companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies), what comprises "Big Search"? Also, "Big Hardware", what companies comprise that?
But the most ridiculous of all, "Big Piracy"? Given that the MPAA and RIAA have sued single people for copyright infringement, why don't we know the names of "Big Piracy"? Napster no longer exists, similar Kazaa, Limewire, and others. Who's left?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
Sorry, Bobby :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Big Search? Big Piracy? Big Hardware?
... Well, I'll give you the last one if you mean Apple and Microsoft.
And, I'm PRETTY sure that you're right about this last bit...
"It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work. Big Media and the Content Gatekeepers of the MPAA and RIAA want to keep all of the revenues for themselves."
Wow, bob, that's so accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
After all, didn't Bill Gates specifically state that he's not against piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not hogwash
That is what hardware stands for isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Big Search: http://funnyphototime.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/people-of-walmart-fail1-search-and-rescue.jpg
Big Piracy: http://laytonio.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5521f5f1e88330120a62a8803970c-800wi
Big Hardware: I don't think I can post this one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Censorship = preventing people from making money from work ?
You are one comment away from convincing the crazies to vote for you as President! =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
"I'm sure that 99% still think that it was about censorship-- a truly nasty spin given that, if anything, it's about enabling the quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting on their hard work."
You're right, Big Media does engage in quite a bit of quiet censorship of artists by preventing them from profiting.
(I mean you do realize that's what you said there, right?)
"There was plenty of astroturfing by Big Search, Big Piracy and Big Hardware. They were out in force and in many cases they pretended that the lobbying was all a charity."
Just like the "charity" the MAFIAA is doing with the lies they're spreading and the unconstitutional laws they're trying to get passed? Also, bonus points for the "Big"'s. Get back to me when there's associations 1/10 of the size and power of the bullshit you work for and then you can start to use the term, "Big."
"This is a sumo match between the billionaires in Silicon Valley and the multimillionaires in Hollywood."
Once again, BAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't know if I've seen something as stupid as you trying to make a media conglomerate large enough TO FUCKING GET SOMEONE EXTRADITED out to be the little guy.
"It has little to do with censorship and everything to do with whether or not the artists can make a living off of their hard work."
You're absolutely right, artists should be profiting off of their work, which means eliminating redundant leaches in the middle who are living off of their hard work and paying them a tiny percentage of what they bring in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Sad part is, I would actually like to see anything verifiable out of an AA that can be double checked. I am wondering if anyone in the AA world will stand up and give the rest of the world a reason to NOT jeer at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Then explain why, according to the studio, Titanic STILL hasn't turned a profit!
The studios (or Big A$$holes) want the profits for themselves, not to share them with the actual creators!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
Such a clause would only punish you if you abused the law to censor people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not hogwash
Given a situation like that, I'd give it a week, top before every last one of them was copyright ownership free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not hogwash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw a great, independent movie a while back
Info on the Lake Effects movie here
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only because other people took purple and magenta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how it can be done!
"By buying this DVD you support the British Film Industry and it's actors. THANK YOU!"
I really sat back for a couple of seconds and thought this was awesome. I was treated like a customer!
I've never seen it before on anything else but I urge other companies to adopt the same strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A brief flash of hope...
"MPAA Exec: We Can Only Make Content That People Want"
at first and thought for a few seconds that it was an oddly prescient analysis and admission of the actual control consumers have over media and art. If people don't want it, companies can't make money from it (and shouldn't be producing it).
Of course that fantasy vanished as I read a little more of the article. Not only do they not understand it's the consumers who dictate the market, they think that they're the sole supplier. As is evidenced by the stream of crappy content and delivery that dominates over more worthy, but less "profitable" ventures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gasp!! Speak to the peasants?!?! What sort of delusion are you living in?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'll have a martini with a twist."
"The rose bushes need trimming."
They talk to common people all the time. They just don't talk with common people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"'The Sistine Chapel'? 'The Statue of David'? 'Don Giovanni'? 'Handel's Messiah'? The works of Mark Twain? Well, they're alright, but they're no 'Happy Feet Two'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is getting pirated? What is getting downloaded? What is getting bought? What is the talk of everyone? It isn't the latest waste of time from Amanda Palmer or Nina Paley is it? Sure, some people want it, but then again, some people like to get spanked and anally violated by transvestites, but that still isn't considered a mainstream concept, is it?
The MPAA is right - they make the content that almost everyone seems to want.
Wake up Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Call of Duty.
Last I checked, that's not a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I meant Mass Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please stop with the bullshit.
MIKE! Haul out the trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering it was signed anonymous, it was probably you jus trying to stir up shit.
You are a true asshole (and probably just Marcus not logged in again... am I right there little prick?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Broadbrush everyone else and the broadbrush will broadbrush you back.
Oh, by the way, he's not Marcus; I am.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we don't want you hauled to the curb, we're not done laughing at you yet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sherman and Attaway create propaganda. And it's not even artistic or clever. It's just doublespeak and greed-justifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm... Is that a closet fetish I hear talking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So what does the public want? Clearly not that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And why is that?
Because the MPAA controls the ratings and puts indie movies so high up that people can't go to see them.
Like that movie "Bully" getting an R rating instead of a PG-13 rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/15/DD3E1NL98D.DTL
As the article says, nobody should be surprised by the rating.
I don't think I want my kid sitting in a theater listening to people cuss. It's bad enough what they get "outside", there is no reason to subject them to it in a closed room - and certainly not in a movie they could go and see without parental supervision.
So your argument doesn't really hold water. Plenty of movies have gotten R ratings and then bitched about it, and mostly because they know that dunderheads like you will spray their names all over social media complaining about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wanna bet that the MPAA doesn't control the ratings?
South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone got to see both sides of the process when their independently made film Orgazmo was given an NC-17 for lewd jokes and brief nudity in the form of breasts and asses (which doomed it to obscurity until Parker and Stone became household names), while South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut received an R for some pretty explicit cartoon sex and violence. The film even included a real picture of an erect penis disguised as a sex toy.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/28/entertainment/ca-50911
""They [the MPAA] have no set rules. Things change from movie to movie," says Stone. "It makes no sense. . . . In going through their notes we saw that they had no standards so we decided these people are stupid and we'd just try to get it past them. If there was something they said couldn't stay in the movie, we'd make it 10 times worse and five times as long. And they'd come back and say, 'OK, that's better.' " " - Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Parker and Stone have crossed swords with the ratings organization before, losing their battle on the independently made film "Orgazmo," which received an NC-17 rating, they say, despite the fact that they consider it to be mild by comparison to "South Park." "The reason we got the NC-17 on 'Orgazmo' was that it was released by October Films, which had no clout, and we didn't have the money to reedit the film and continue to resubmit it," says Parker.
"It's all politics, relationships at the top," says Stone. "It's who you know. If you're Steven Spielberg and you want to push those limits, like in 'Saving Private Ryan,' you can because it's done in the name of high art and how much money he makes [for the industry]."
So, what you said... About my argument not holding water?
Yeah, I think it does, maybe you should offer real proof before embarrassing yourself like you just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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:
Cuz everyone is just going to run out to see 21 jump street. /s
The year 2011 was notable for containing the release of the most film sequels in a single year, at 28 sequels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_film
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, your comments equating indie film and music to "get spanked and anally violated by transvestites" is rather interesting. I guess it really shows what you think of on a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Accounting irregularities!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing.
Black March, bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But not at the price they charge for it. Now what? Who do you actually think will have to budge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was overreaching and degrading to nearly everyone that would fall under it's oppressive reach.
Nice try at making any version of it seem acceptable.
It's not acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA playing it wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they should focus on creating content people want to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you didn't desire it you wouldn't rip it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh? So you think people want shit?
Well, hate to break it to ya, but with Youtube Poops around even the shit department's too high for ya.
Maybe you should invest in toilet paper production?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a nutshell
"You, sir, are just the entertainment."
Congress portrays the needs for laws like SOPA/PIPA as necessary for a number of reasons, but seriously, we are talking about entertainment. Personally I really hadn't looked at any of these issues from that angle, but when you put it in perspective, we are simply talking about entertainment.
In other words, if movies and music require insane levels of investment to produce, then get on Kickstarter and raise funds or quit bitching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can they be rational with nit wits like the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA and the AAP involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess you have no problems letting the government and entertainment companies spy on your internet usage, but a lot of people like their privacy. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because they just like keeping their private life private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck with the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This bill would have severely subverted Constitutional provisions designed to protect the average citizen from abuse from third parties, and government institutions.
Ya know that little thing called due process and innocent until proven guilty? Heard of them?
Yeah, little shit like that.
"Stopping people from posting links to stolen music/movies isn't censorship it's enforcement." - Unless the actions of a few bad eggs infringe on the rights of everyone else. e.g just what happened with dajaz1 & Megaupload. Plenty of legitimate users.
PPL like you appear to be of the mindset of "only the police should have guns" crowd.
""break the internet" was a blatant lie" In your little mentally twisted world maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For evidence, look at how badly a weaker law, the DMCA, is abused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1QKBmEo-Ns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only will you not engage in useful discussion, your obvious lies are old.
When you realize that not everyone is 12 and that most people can see through the AA lies, the sooner you can come to the table and start to really work out a deal the people are willing to live with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh? Please explain to me how the statement is incorrect. Further, please demonstrate that the people saying it knew it was incorrect.
Because by my reading of the bills, the statement was factual.
Planned by who? Do you have any evidence for this at all?
Well, first, yes it is. Stopping any speech is censorship. The thing is that some censorship is acceptable to society at large. That you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also censorship, but it's OK censorship.
That said, stopping people from actually distributing pirated material wasn't what people were complaining about when they were talking about censorship. They were talking about the suppression of legal speech, which the original incarnation of SOPA certainly allowed.
Finally, preventing people from linking to infringing material is, I would argue, unacceptable censorship. Posting a link is not the same as posting the infringing material itself. It is no different than publishing an address.
In fact, I'm amazed that people who are extremely concerned with eliminating piracy don't encourage the posting of these links. It makes infringers easier to find, doesn't it? Publishing the addresses of drug dealers is legal, and I would expect that cops would really love it if people did this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Planned by who? Do you have any evidence for this at all?
Aliens? I don't have any evidence, and I am not the original poster, but if my years worth of experience watching X-Files and Hulu commercials are up to snuff, it is usually the aliens. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would help the MPAA overall if they had people that actually looked at facts trying to run things and be their spokesmen.
Oh wait, but that would make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These guys must really like making enemies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Angle
But ... we need the LCD, because if they were to disappear, we might become the LCD. And it's so much more rewarding to be smarter then everyone else, like the MPAA. Dang, I suppose I should reach out to them, they being on the same level of being smarter than those others. Sold, everything on this site is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good movies and bad movies were made this way, but they always made sure it was their movies that were on the screens.
Sometimes a foreign film or two would slip in there, but they would rarely take up space at the multiplex. Independently made movies started to become popular in the 1990s, but they put a stop to that by cornering the indie distribution market. Now there is no indie business outside of film festivals.
So it's not that they make the movies people want to see, but control the films that are available to see.
They were busted for this in the 1950s, and maybe they should be busted up again. The deals they're making for digital projection systems is giving them even more control over what gets shown at your local theatre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're sounding a little condescending, Mike
Maybe the Internet hive mind has already lost interest in this game. Maybe Big Media will learn the lesson that they have to be even sneakier and/or more gradual in their approach. But one way or another, bad IP laws have a very high probability of getting on the books.
It's a little early to be smug about the last Internet victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like that Marmaduke movie literally nobody asked for? "War is peace, ignorance is strength, movies based on universally hated comics are what the people want" indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"only we can create content that people want to have"
Ther should be no problem doing that - if as you say the public want your content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money, money, money, money, money.
That's what all of these shenanigans are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of misnformation
Except that he's wrong, of course. The Free Software Foundation says this is free software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and notice, Mr Attaway that it says nothing at all about what you consider piracy not does it encourage it. It encourages sharing and creativity free from what it calls proprietary restraints which seems to be what the RIAA and MPAA are all about.
If Mr Attaway would bother to read the GPL he might discover that copyright isn't attacked in it, the code is not placed in the public domain though there are restrictions in converting it to a proprietary product. I fact copyright is expressly contained in the GPL.
Copyleft is a philosophy expressed in the GPL and by FSF which has little or nothing to do with "piracy" however the "content" industry wants to define that (which appears to be surprisingly elastic). And it's not the same as the Creative Commons licenses.
If you're going to "educate" people, Mr Attaway of the MPAA I suggest you start with educating yourself, TAM and Bob first.
Then I suggest you find you how much software covered by the GPL has been used to generate to pretty special effects in your films, the 3D effects and so much else. Not to mention other areas of your member companies where FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) is used. But hey, you think you have another great word to toss around and redefine at your pleasure. Guess what? You don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA - distraction
Surely the enormous amount of time and talent devoted to debating who should or should not control content is a distraction.
Wouldn't it be better to spend all the time, intelligence and resources on "making" a "global citizen's" internet.
There are billions of us who are secular and humanist We are the majority or silent majority in every country.
Surely the likes of Avaaz can make it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA - distraction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you wish for
Do you really want the "You've Got Mail" people to become aware of the cheezburger network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it comes to providing us with entertainment through comic relief, no one does a better job than them. But not because we are laughing with them but because we are laughing at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]