Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
from the this-isn't-the-movies,-ari dept
Famed Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel (the model for Jeremy Piven's character in Entourage, and the brother of Chicago mayor/former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) doesn't have a particularly good history when it comes to his understanding of how technology and policy will develop. Two years ago, he insisted that he was talking to President Obama about getting a three strikes law in place in the US. Last year, of course, he was excited about new laws like SOPA/PIPA. That was at the AllThingsD conference, in which he chided a reporter at one point by saying that the reporter needs a history lesson and "the business of the movie business is DVDs."This year, at the very same conference, he's changed his tune, but not his attitude or ignorance of technology. This year, he told the crowd that "the DVD business is gone" and everything was about TV, TV, TV. Except, once again, he appears to be ignorant or (more likely) in complete denial:
Emanuel: Cord-cutting's not happening.Some of this appears to be just plain old wishful thinking and some of it is ignorance. The actual numbers show that cord cutting is very, very real. Also, I'm getting pretty sick of the condescending ridiculousness where people insist that either we stick with the old model or all we have left are amateur animal videos (usually cat videos, but Ari went to the dogs). That's not just elitist. It's wrong. There's plenty of quality content that get produced outside of the traditional model, and the amount is growing. And, of course, the "somebody's got to pay for this" argument is a complete tangent. First of all, no, no one has to pay for anything, but more importantly, there are all sorts of interesting business models developing that don't require people paying for a jacked up cable subscription. Second, just because you want someone "to pay" for the content which pays your hefty salary, that has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of cord cutting. It's like the CEO of a horse buggy manufacturer insisting that no one's buying automobiles because "someone's got to pay" for all those horse buggies.
Walt: But cord-never is happening.
Emanuel: I don’t think so. I think when people get to a certain age, they pay. Somebody’s got to pay for this, or you’re not going to get premium content, and I think that’s more valuable than "two dogs doing whatever they’re doing on a couch."
A little tidbit from history: it was the guy who left the horse & buggy business and went on to found both GM and Chevrolet (despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines) who ended up being successful. Not the guys who clung to selling horse and buggies.
Emanuel pays some lip service to technology innovation (he even seems to like the idea of crowdfunding), and talks about how involved he is in digital projects. But he still comes at it from the perspective of "how can these new technologies protect my old way of doing business?" And there, apparently, every problem is Google's fault, because they haven't created the magic "stop piracy" button. He repeatedly mentioned Google, and how they had to "stop helping people steal my clients' content." When asked how, he admitted he has no idea. When asked if he wants them to censor search results, he responded:
I don’t want them to censor results, but they have a bunch of smart guys there that can figure this stuff out.You see? Magic "stop piracy" button.
Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him on this point, asking: "Aren’t you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?" Emanuel didn't like this analogy:
That’s a stupid example. Look, Google can filter and does filter for child pornography. They do that already. So stealing is a bad thing, and child pornography is a bad thing.Of course, this once again displays his ignorance. Child porn is easily identifiable by anyone who sees it. There is no "legal" child porn. There is no "authorized" child porn. There is no "fair use" child porn. There is no condition under which that content is legal and there are no legal questions to be answered in filtering it. Copyright is entirely different. You can't just "know" if the content is infringing. As we saw in the Viacom case, companies upload authorized stuff all the time, and it's often impossible to distinguish from unauthorized content. Separately, you can't create an algorithm that detects fair use. Or the public domain. Point being: it's not that easy and it's silly to claim otherwise.
Emanuel, like many people, also seems to have a blindness for how the situation he's in is no different than the situation others have faced. He talks about how the music industry should have embraced Napster when it came along -- but when he's asked about embracing similar platforms for TV, he immediately says that's ridiculous, because "these things cost lots of money." Again, we're in "wishful thinking" land, where because the producers of content do little to keep down costs, old and obsolete business models must stay in place, and new and innovative platforms must be censored.
The comment that really sums up his worldview is when he's asked about changing market behavior, whereby people mutlitask while watching TV. He says:
“I’m okay with a little bit of disruption, and let’s see what happens. I dunno. I’m good with it.”This is the common viewpoint of the legacy player about to be disrupted in a big, bad way. They always insist that they're okay with disruption -- but in moderation. There are two really funny things about this quote. The first is the idea that disruption comes in bite-sized increments. That's not how it works. Disruption comes in massive waves that are unstoppable. And that leads to the second funny thing: he seems to think that his opinion on disruption and whether or not he's "good with it" matters to whether or not it will actually happen.
The disruption is already underway. And, for now, it looks like Emanuel's still hanging on to his cash-cow horse buggy business, while insisting that the road pavers really need to "do something" about those dangerous "automobile" things.
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: ari emanuel, censorship, cord cutting, crowdfunding, disruption, hollywood
Companies: chevrolet, gm, google, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now that's out of the way we can have some sensible discussion on the topic. The biggest problem with the war on piracy is the fact that all of the decisions are being made by people who have zero understanding of technology and the Internet. Until that changes, we will continue to have articles like this on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You wish!!!! It is my job to make sure this doesn't happen.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Furthermore, current technology is rapidly unmasking the REAL liars and the REAL thieves and the REAL extortionists and REAL con-artists sponging off you and me, such as the MAFIAA and its greedy lying thieving members (who seem to be disproportionately of middle-eastern stone-age desert rat descent, by the way). Where is it written in stone that I'm obliged to support these lying thieving lazy scum-bags?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child pornography - legal or not?
The illegality depends on whether the depiction is of an actual child. Computer generated images and cartoons are protected speech.
Of course, the US approach to protecting virtual child pornography is different from the rest of the world and Google may well have an interest in overblocking some speech which would not be illegal in the US in order to comply with the laws of other nations.
So the claim that there is no legal child pornography is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
Not in certain countries, they're not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
> an actual child.
You're totally optimistic. Depending on juridiction, there are different age cutoffs, text-only may or may not be allowed, works with artistic value may or may not be allowed, depictions of children acted by adults may or may not be allowed, etc.
Not to talk about the fact that the existence of steganography means that every file on your computer might contain child porn without you knowing about it (and such ignorance is, in many jurisdictions, not a valid defense --- and even if it were, your life is already ruined the minute you have been accused, so good luck).
Not quite as bad a situation as for copyright, but still a cesspool of problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
First, in Free Speech Coalition the court ruled 6-3 that virtual child pornography is protected unless it falls within the obscenity exception. The difference between obscenity and child pornography is that possessing obscene images by itself isn't illegal, and is even constitutionally protected, whereas possessing child pornography is always unprotected.
Obscenity turns on other factors like patently offensiveness, prurient interest and community standards and lack of artistic or literary value which are not required factors regarding child pornography.
Federal law directly forbids possession of child pornography, whereas it doesn't forbid possession of obscene images.
Second, in Stevens the court cautioned that child pornography's constitutionality is integral to criminal conduct -- that there must be a nexus between an underlying crime and the government's interest in outlawing its depiction.
It leaves so-called sexting prosecutions in a legal grey area, because the argument goes the government can't ban depiction of even real acts which aren't criminal.
So yes, there are a lot of speech which according to the laws of most nations would be considered child pornography, that the First Amendment might protect.
If Google takes down links to a site hosting computer generated child pornography, it in fact removes links to protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
In England+Wales, computer generated images or cartoons are now as illegal as depictions of an actual child. However, any images (including ones of real children) must be "indecent", or obscene, offensive, disgusting etc., and those are matters for a jury.
There are also limitations in terms of artworks, films etc.
Interestingly, the age limit of child abuse images etc. in the UK is 18, despite the fact that the age of consent or marriage is 16 (it was raised under pressure from the US, much to the annoyance of certain daily newspapers who used to publish pictures of 16-17 year olds on their third page). They had to create a specific defence to possession and production for when "living as husband and wife" with the person involved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child pornography - legal or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL21EB474DBBD62834
I got more enjoyment out of those ten 5-minute episodes than I did from any hour long tv show this past year.
Also, I am a cord-never. I will always be one. I visit my mom's house on a fairly regular basis. She is a Dish subscriber. I can never find anything interesting to watch when I am there. Why would I pay for something that I would rarely watch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention that Toonami's finally back on the air...
...
Yeah, not much, but there's always something.
I personally find myself catching up on USA original series and old game shows these days, not to mention M*A*S*H*.
[ 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:
Fixed.
Somewhere in the middle of unexplored US wilderness Mr Knight fights to get to his mom's hut...
Sorry, imagination is hyperactive..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
bark! noooooooooooooooooooo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With Dish I am able to record shows (and movies) and then watch them from any TV in my house any time I want with ease makes this service worth it to me.
I do agree with you that there is a lot of "fluff" but if you just record what things you are interested in it makes for a worthwhile service.
I have NetFlix as well but I find that I watch my DVR recordings more than I do anything NetFlix currently offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmr2bxYVS91qewxco.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will be a great day when what he thinks is premium content no longer exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's pretty much hit the nail on the head - people will not pay for as long as they can get it for free. But when not enough people are paying, and when the "alternate financing" models are not paying the way, that content source disappears.
Remember, this stuff is the content most widely pirated, most widely in demand. It's the ignorance of this basic fact that makes answers like yours laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And people will not pay for inconvenience, either.
But if you give people something they like in a manner that is convenient for them, they will buy it. Steam gives me the games that I want for a good price in a convenient package; I therefore have something like 90+ Steam games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Convenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that is our choice, right? You do believe in democracy, don't you?
You argument is idiotic. Either the majority of people pirate, and therefore they are saying, "Find a way to make cheaper content," or the minority of people pirate, and it shouldn't matter to the industry. You can't have it both ways. Either way, the consumer is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Doing whatever the fuck you like, without concern of the rights of others isn't democracy, that's anarchy.
"Either the majority of people pirate, and therefore they are saying, "Find a way to make cheaper content,""
Wow. You think those are the only choices? Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers. But if HBO stops producing, what will there be in the file lockers?
Cord cutters are people who think they found a better way, but they forgot to look at cause and effect. It's not about "make cheaper content", it's about "I can't get beer for free, but I can pirate your content. So I pay for beer, and pirate your stuff".
The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist. I would like a $1 a month apartment in Manhattan, at least 1500 square feet, and I would like a free butler. I am the consumer, I must be right!
See how your logic fails?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's always going to be those who shift to one extreme or the other.
The fact remains too that these companies do not listen to their consumers, communication is key since they are taking the consumers money. If a consumer feels slighted by a company, why shouldn't the company attempt to find a middle ground or provide a better service when the option is available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers.
Wow. You think those are the only choices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, he does. He's too stupid to either realise that the content his corporate masters crap out aren't the only choices, and he's too stupid to realise that people can be critical of the current system without being pirates.
In other words, he's too stupid to even attempt to discuss this issue, yet here he is, day after day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic?
When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.
No, it is your "logic" that fails utterly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As your siding with the media industry (not to be confused with the actual artists and creative folks that make stuff..) you can't actually say that with a straight face. Based on your definition of anarchy, nothing has ever existed in history as anarchistic as the media industry.
Between the actual creative folks, artists, business partners and the public at large their stamina for screwing people is the envy of every teenage boy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consumers make the market, and in that respect are always right. If they make it impossible for a market to exist, so what? They have spoken.
Of course, your argument is that there couldn't be any high-quality offerings, which is incorrect. If there is a demand, it will be met. What the consumers might do is make it clear that the market as it exists does not provide what they want. Existing businesses may fail, but new ones will rise that will meet the market demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> that are passed, and working within the democratic
> system to change them if you don't like them.
That'd be great if the system we have now didn't favor whomever has the deepest pockets and pays the lawmakers the most money.
When laws and treaties are being negotiated in secret, with only the industry lobbyists allowed to give input, that's no longer democracy the way you described it and a lot of people believe that if the system itself is ethically perverted, then it's not unethical to defy the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cord cutters are cutting the cord because we have Netflix, Hulu, Youtube and more. None of these have the blockbusters, but they have reasonably priced content and hey, watching TV is mindless relaxation. The quality of a Youtube flick passes the standards for video entertainment with ease, and I can find funny stuff about things big media will never cover.
Very few people are movie critics with exacting standards, and Hollywood often misses the standards that real people have.
I care far more about Sherlock Holmes personality than flashy fight scenes that don't fit with the Holmes persona. Hollywood failed on that standard, and I would rather they entitle their action detective movies James Bond and leave Sherlock for those who enjoy actual sleuthing.
Another thing, Engineer's give fairly accurate estimates most of the time, and we're decent judges of priority as well. Telling us that something taking as long as it takes is unacceptable will net you an answer of too bad, not make the thing finish faster.
I think the thing that annoyed me most about Transformers two (which I regret seeing, let alone the money spent to see it), was a simple math error (4-1+1 != 5). They spent how much on that movie just to leave in such obvious mistakes?
Premium content - an expensive waste of time, 90% of the time (which 10% you like is highly subjective).
That 10% plus the fact that no one else prices themselves out of their market accounts for the piracy behavior you have noticed.
Disclaimer: Statistics are derived from a sample-size of 1 and have a negligible confidence level. They have been included for illustration purposes only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People like to see things that normal people produce, that they can relate to more. Not what you can produce when you drown something with money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some, maybe, but most of the ones I know (and I know quite a few) didn't cut the cord because of cost. They cut the cord because they realized that they could get the same content in a manner that was far, far more convenient.
They can now watch the shows they want on their own schedule, a little bit at a time or in marathon sessions, without any commercials, and on any device or in any location they wish. And they don't have to deal with cable companies (which is always a harrowing experience) when something goes wrong.
Those are the primary reasons they have for cutting the cord. None of them mentioned saving money as their main reason (although a few mentioned it as a bonus).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You wanting price does not mean you are entitled to force your price on anybody.
Movie studios originally refused to rent movies, they only sold at $135.00 a copy, to almost nobody. People borrowed
from somebody who had what they wanted and watched that. Sometimes they even made copies to give away to friends.
That is why the media companies tried to get the VCR outlawed.
Shot down in court.
So Blockbuster came along and in effect said, "If you allow us to rent movies at a fraction of the purchase price we
will pay you $X every time and eventually you will get the purchase price and maybe more out of each movie."
A few years later and the major source of revenue from movies was video rentals. Some go direct to rental without
ever being shown in theaters.
So the guys, always guys, demanding $135.00 were keeping their companies from increased renenues by snubbing
POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS with their "we never did it that way before" mindset.
So it appears to be time for another round of executive turnovers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus!!! The Founding Fathers should have just bowed to the Crown!!! Sometimes bad laws need revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. I cut the cord because there's nothing to watch on TV. See my comment that you ignored above - most stuff on TV is total, utter, mindless crap. By some miracle, if there is something I (or my fiancee) want to watch, we watch it on Netflix. If it's not on Netflix...we do something else instead. Note that "doing something else instead" is NOT A LOST SALE. You can't lose a sale that you were never going to make in the first place.
You will continue to not get it until you understand that consumers want convenience and they are willing to pay for it. There is an amazing abundance of entertainment options and there is no reason to ever seek entertainment that is inconvenient. Netflix is incredibly convenient for me. Steam is incredibly convenient for me. I have no problem paying either of these vendors, even though I can pirate the TV shows, movies, and games for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What else are you doing instead? "Enquiring Minds Want To Know!" - and it better not be pumping gas with Elvis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re: Re:
I've downloaded episodes of South Park from SouthParkStudios.com (which, by the way, is pretty much the only reason, beyond Mythbusters, that I stayed on so long with Cable.) I wish Mythbusters would put full episodes up on a website too, but at least they are fairly current with their DVD releases. I wish they would release the DVDs quicker, but 6 months isn't bad. Anything on HBO I'd like to watch (including Game of Thrones,) I wait until they are available for rent on Netflix.
And I do pump gas with Elvis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And give me a TED Talk over a Hollywood movie any day. There is tons of better stuff out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it is. That you would think our lives must either revolve around the television or illegitimately gaining access to its content is an extremely arrogant, irresponsible and shallow point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why, I believe he is. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can stop pulling this idiotic attack out of your ass every time someone criticises the glorious system you worship, and perhaps gain the inkling that not everybody who thinks you and your system are full of shit are pirates.
Then, maybe you can join us in reality and have an adult discussion on the actual issues. Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course people like you love using "anarchy" and painting it to mean "rape and pillage and murder to your heart's content and to hell with anyone else". But that's not surprising, although that does say a lot about you personally that you would think that is what would happen.
"Wow. You think those are the only choices? Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers. But if HBO stops producing, what will there be in the file lockers? "
No, there are plenty of other choices. Not just the one you mention. Some people, shocking as it may be to you, do entirely without. Others make do with independent offerings. Others are happy with "cat videos" (as bob would say). There are a plethora of options for entertainment. You're just focusing on content as it applies to video (or even music). You are aware music and tv shows now have to compete with games, right? Or social media? Or, hell, even going outside? Shocking I know, but the amount of choices people have today to give up paying for something that isn't really that great is astounding.
"Cord cutters are people who think they found a better way, but they forgot to look at cause and effect. It's not about "make cheaper content", it's about "I can't get beer for free, but I can pirate your content. So I pay for beer, and pirate your stuff"."
Cord cutters are people who tend to realize they're overpaying for something they don't necessarily need and can obviously do without. Hence the cord cutting. I DO NOT want a landline phone, however, for our security system to function properly it is required, so I have it. However, if I didn't need it for that reason, I'd shut it off quick, fast and in a hurry.
"The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist. I would like a $1 a month apartment in Manhattan, at least 1500 square feet, and I would like a free butler. I am the consumer, I must be right!"
No, the consumer is always right. Hence the commonly used expression, "the customer is always right". And up until the early '90s that was the case with most industries (including, surprisingly, the entertainment industry).
As a consumer, you are right, per your example. However, the people with apartments how you want them, DO NOT have to cater to you. That is their choice, as it is yours to find someone else who will. Even if the other apartment renters DO NOT like it. Which is how things currently are. The market, us customers, has told the entertainment industries what we want and how we want it. Only recently have they begun making some headway to appease us, of course the moment they see that we want their products on our terms and give them money they think they can take back control and tell us how they want to give us their products. That may work, but more often than not people will tell them to "fuck off". You won't meet my wants/needs I'll go to someone who will. Loathe as you are to accept it, piracy is a product of YOUR and YOUR INDUSTRIES refusal to cater to the changing markets and technological innovation. Piracy could be practically wiped out if you'd just give the people what they want (your products, DRM free, in a variety of formats, with no geographical or time related restrictions and at a reasonable price all in a convenient location/manner and as easy to use/purchase as possible). And no one is saying they want it free, they'll hand over their money. But if you aren't willing to meet them halfway, then they'll go elsewhere and it's your own fault/problem.
"See how your logic fails?"
Coming from you that's hilarious AC. HILARIOUS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess the names Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln mean nothing, huh?
All of them broke the law of the time to further Democracy. Hell, Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, was well known for suspending Habius Corpus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean if the general population realizes that you could have shelter for free, no one will rent an apartment ever again!
Think of all the poor landlords, the bums are stealing their money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's my movie and I don't charge any one to see it.
Am I a pirate because I allowed those ten people to view it for free? Some of them ask me for a copy for their library.
If I them give a copy should I Send the rights holder a check, even though that person would not go out and buy the movie? (Usually because they just finished watching it!)
Well now! Being the ever good anarchist that I am, I guess that I will have to discontinue Movie Night and stop buying those DVDs. Don't want any one saying the I disrespected any of our great IP laws.
I don't think that the Movie industry will miss those pidly little regular purchases from me.I mean, after all I'm just one person. And an anarchist at that! Who Knew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's more like you have a lease agreement to an apartment in new York, and I pay you a dollar for a photocopy. I get to see it. You get to see it. And it's still your apartment.
The entertainment industry is built on selling free copies of shows they have already paid to produce. If I don't pay for entourage, entourage doesn't cease to exist, because somebody in an expensive suit already paid for it.
Hurts if you're a studio, but they could lessen that pain of they stopped trying to pretend every digital copy costs them more than nothing to produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can get everything free. I still shell out 200 a month on phone, internet and DirectTv. Everything I see can be downloaded VIA the interwebnets. Guess what? It is not worth my time to replace all that content with downloads. Also guess what? If there were more outlets for content, and not just the crap out there now, complete catalogs, I would gladly pay for access to that. But ohhhh noooooss the pie-rates may copy it and put it out there for freee ohs my gods. Concentrate on the users like myself that will pay, instead of those who wouldn't pay, and even given a place to do so still would not.
"and when the "alternate financing" models are not paying the way"
Dont worry, technology will catch up to the point that we will no longer need to spend 200 million dollars to make a movie that looks great. I cant wait for that time.
Creators do so because they love to do it. Once tools are readily available to make their final product high quality, your precious little studios will fall and no one will care because there will still be quality entertainment out there at an affordable price.
My precious movies (inaudible) precious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the roku boxes are great because you can wireless stream hi def to your tv's as well, using a third party program (available from the pirate bay if you wanna be a jerk, but i prefer supporting independant coders), so you have netflix on tap to channel surf, and do old series, and you can stream your pirated content. As for the phone there's lots of Voip based options you could use to cut that out, if you still need a land line at all. Maybe a google voice number, or skype even?
that takes care of direct tv, and the landline, replacing it with 15 bucks roughly, 8 for netflix, call it 8 or ten for a good proxy account (i like btguard). that saves you 150, INCREASES your available content since you've got everything ala carte and on demand, and means you can now get a faster internet speed on the savings.
roku boxes are cheap and easy, the older refurb'd ones are even better, they come with an ethernet port, and hardwire is always preferable, although they do ok wireless, if you've got a good dual band router.
seriously man, take the plunge, you'll never regret it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I love how people think that content is just going to go away.
People have been producing art and music for ages and ages and ages. It's cheaper and easier and make content now than ever before. If all of Hollywood disappears today there would be no shortage of great content.
So basically you're admitting defeat? No one will pay for water as long as they can get it for free? Heck, no one will pay for oxygen bars as long as they can breath for free? No one will pay for free TV as long as it's free?
If no one wants to pay for your services, your services isn't as great as you think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Incorrect, people will pay for goods and services if they see value in them.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuff is already paid for.
I'm already getting nagged by the spouse to cut the cord because her iPad centric web based diversions are already more than enough to make here completely disinterested in an expensive cable subscription.
The thing with DVDs is that they are kind of permanent. Once you pay for them you don't have to pay for them again. So the market could be saturated already.
You can watch a 40 year old show on 5 year old DVDs in lieu of watching cable. This means you won't be paying any extra money for new DVDs or paying for "premium content" either.
Stuff is already paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuff is already paid for.
There must be many people in a similar situation and anecdotally speaking that could well contribute to the decrease in DVD sales. People have already bought.
Of course that is why they spent so much money pushing Bluray... they wanted people to buy the same things again but "now with more shiny".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stuff is already paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuff is already paid for.
I know I've bought far less DVDs in the last 12 months than I had in the average year before that. The reason? Last time I took stock of what I owned, I had over 80 DVDs and Blu Rays I haven't watched yet, let alone the unseen extra features and commentaries on discs of movies I've watched... That's on top of the pile of unplayed Wii, 360 & PS3 games. I probably have at least a year of entertainment, if not 2, already lying around in my living room.
So, yeah, I've bought less DVD/Blus this year so far so that I can watch the content I've already legally bought. According to these geniuses, that should be illegal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogies
For example, once upon a time most homes were lit using candles, oil lamps, and gas lanterns. Then one day, a certain middle-manager douchenozzle whom history for some stupid reason credits with being an inventor; Thomas Edison, to be specific; managed to successfully mass-market the lightbulb--and the sales of candles, oil lamps, and gas lanterns has never been the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogies
See you do not need to change just market it different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogies
Imagine if the ice supply companies lobbied to eliminate efficient at-home refrigeration!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogies
Or claim it's eco-friendly because you didn't use electricity to make it, thereby reducing your carbon footprint. (But conveniently forget the fact that you shipped it halfway around the world.)
Better yet, Organic Eco-Friendly Ice! Get it while it's cold!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is more like a road sign than a road
Could a wife sue the makers of a sign because her husband used said sign to get to a strip club?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is more like a road sign than a road
Personal Accountability has gone the way of common sense.... To a galaxy far far far away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google is more like a road sign than a road
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cord Never
Yet, I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for entertainment that I can access online...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cord Never
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amazing
Its frankly getting a bit old.
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amazing
/BadTasteBear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-americas-love-affair-cars-no-accide nt
I suppose there are certain industries that wishes they can do things like this...note that this doesn't involve lobbying for favorable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines
The automobile industry eventually began waging a psychological campaign to get pedestrians out of the streets. First, it invented the term "jaywalking" (a reference to the idea of jaybirds as loud idiots) to make fun of pedestrians walking in the street as being stuck in the past.
Second, schools helped train new generations of children to avoid the streets when the American Automobile Association (AAA) became the top supplier of safety curriculum for U.S. schools in the 1920s, Norton explained. The AAA also spread the idea of school safety patrols to help keep kids out of the street.
The popular phrase "America's love affair with the automobile" eventually came along in a TV show called "Merrily We Roll Along" as part of the DuPont Series of the Week in 1961 � a time when DuPont owned a large percent of stock in General Motors. American comedian and actor "Groucho" Marx used the phrase in his narration of the show until it stuck in people's minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two dogs
Premiers July 4th on Bravo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two dogs
2^10 dalmatians doing whatever on a couch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two dogs
Felony version: 2 puppies in lust: on a couch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two dogs
Lady and the Tramp is abased on young love!
DISNEY IS PRO-ABUSE!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that fair use can't be boiled down to such a oomputation. The context of usage is the most important thing. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where the use of the entire work could fall under "fair use".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire documentary to a class in school is fair use.
Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire feature length film to a cinema class is fair use.
Sorry, no citations, but John's assertion that context of usage is a critical factor in determination of fair use is correct.
As an example, in grade school, my classes were periodically shown documentaries and educational videos pulled from the library (Those reel to reel projection video tapes that got stuck and the bulb burned out the tape) and even without citation I can guarantee that the school did not pay public performance fees.
Example 2: Most schools in England showed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to grade school classes. Again without citation, I can guarantee there were no public performance fees paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yes, I use youtube for that. Just like all the other K-12 teachers do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be a total restructuring of fair use, and one I wouldn't be in favor of. I think the current structure does a better job determining what is and isn't acceptable to do without the copyright holder's permission, even if it's not deterministic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree
I will have to disagree with the above statement. It is easy the algorithm just needs to use the following logic.
Check X
If X is listed in Public Domain DB approve.
If X is NOT listed in Public Domain DB continue.
If X is listed in piracy list DB for the specific instance block.
If X is NOT listed in piracy list DB for the specific instance approve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
That piracy list DB would have to have every single piece of content on the web listed and properly analysed to determine if it is fair use or infringing. This in turn would require it to be constantly updated with judges determining the trust for each item. So we're back to square one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disagree
That is the magic script it blocks everything that it knows if infringing and allows everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disagree
That is the magic script it blocks everything that it knows if infringing and allows everything else.
Exactly the point: that would be magic. Nobody knows how to program a script to determine fair use. How would you program a computer to recognize parody, or estimate the impact of a use on the market for the original work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disagree
The the actual address is not listed it is not blocked.
(I guess that everyone missed that I was poking fun at those who think a magic button or program can decide what is infringing or not with out it having at assume everything is allowed unless told other wise. You know the same way it is now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The vision was simple: a website that displays posters for a specific region all the way down to the county.
But the inner workings that make that vision possible involve a SQL database, PHP coding and a healthy knowledge of how to integrate the two. Then you have the issue of timeline and money.
This idiot doesn't understand the factors involved with setting something like that up, assuming they can just "figure it out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunch of smart guys
I don't want Hollywood to stop making movies, I want them to stop making crap movies. They have a bunch of smart guys there that can figure that stuff out. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of smart guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bunch of smart guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Of course, the ubiquity of access via the internet to pornography that in some areas would pass the Miller test and in others would not poses a substantial challenge to the application of the law. Insofar as I am aware, only one circuit court of appeals has held that a national standard should now apply. As yet, the Supreme Court has not reconsidered the continued viability of the Miller test.
Only Justice Potter Stewart has ever taken the issue head on with his well-know statement "I know it when I see it.", and his statement has never been accepted by others on the court.
While most of what is typically considered to be child pornography would be viewed as such in virtually every community in the US, there still remain circumstances where it is either not so clear or else third party reactions idiotic beyond belief (Walmart turns in parents who took photos of their three very young kids playing in the bathtub...their children were removed from their home for a period of time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.examiner.com/article/porn-star-lupe-fuentes-appears-puerto-rico-court-vindicates- man-accused-of-child-porn-possession
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To echo Pro Se's argument:
Kiddie porn, even within one jurisdiction, is not an entirely black and white call, because the perception of porn and the perception of child, as well as the perception of what part of the making of the content matters (make cartoons felonies?) are highly subjective.
And yes, some people, for whatever reasons have monumentally stupid reactions to nakedness.
Pro Se, I have a question about your reasoning here. I thought the "average person" reasoning, and the "know it when I see it" reasoning , i.e the Miller case, were regarding obscenity.
Are you equating porn, which is really a genre of content rather than a legal classification, to obscenity in order to abbreviate your argument (type less), or are do you view them as equivalent, or even synonyms?
My understanding is that, in the US, Obscenity is illegal, and child porn is illegal, but adult porn that is not adjudicated as obscene is legal. I assume you are merely conserving words and time, but it would be nice if you could speak for yourself on the conflation of obscenity and porn.
Final point:
Determinations of both copyright infringement and kiddie porn include subjective judgements. It is disgusting that the IP maximalists would conflate child abuse with making digital copies of their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, it is "obscenity" (even though ponographic [sometimes modified by hard core] continues to pop up every now and then) that is deemed to be unworthy of protection under the First Amendment.
I believe you agree that the test is fraught with problems, many of which depend upon the "eye" and "sensibilities" of the one exposed to the material, i.e., matters that are subjective and not objective. This subjective element in my opinion extends to each of the three elements comprising the Miller test, and it is for this reason that the ability to say "Yup, obscene" is every bit as difficult to ascertain as is copyright infringment except in only the most egregious of cases.
Interestingly, I do not recall the availablity of clearly obscene materials (which are excluded from First Amendment protection) over the internet ever having been discussed to the same extent as that of copyright infringement. I do not know why this is so, and do not believe that speculation would add anything of substance to the conversation. I must note, however, that this specific area of the law is not one I have studied to any significant degree.
In sum, and as you note, it is the subjectiveness associated with sexually explicit materials that make them well nigh impossible to classify as obscene except in the most extreme of cases. What is deemed obscene in one geographic location may very well be considered as having significant artistic merit in another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I appreciate your response and engagement. My question to you was sincere, as was your response. Your clarification is consistent with what I thought you meant in the first place. Again, your comment that I queried was cogent and insightful, and I appreciated the fact that you challenged the the OP's assertion. I agree the OP's equivalency was Bunk. (That's you Mike, no offense)
I do believe that we agree on the interpretation of current law in this area.
I would emphasize that the local part the Miller test doesn't make sense even within a single large city, let alone the country as a whole. If you (general you, not Pro Se you) have ever lived in a large city, you would know that the community standards vary widely within miles, or even along street borders.
Re: Obscenity over the internet: It isn't speculation, it is conviction.
http://boingboing.net/2008/10/07/adult-film-director.html
I know this is not what you study and focus on, so just FYI ...
A guy who lived and worked in California was sentenced to prison in Florida for obscenity. He was sentenced for what he had on his website, which was viewable in Florida.
"Greenwald's entire point in discussing the farcical proceedings that convicted Little is that they specifically selected a venue for prosecution best suited to clearing that first hurdle:
'Even though he lived and worked in California, the Bush DOJ dragged him to Tampa, Florida in order to try him under Tampa's "community standards," on the theory that his website used servers physically based in Central Florida and some of the films were sent to Tampa customers who purchased them.'"
Easy to find lots of different takes on the issues, but the guy was in Cali, his internet business was in Cali, then he was convicted in Florida.
"And that's no legal standard at all - that's the whim of men, and most specifically men with a very particular kind of agenda regarding any and all public expressions or discussions of sex and sexuality - repulsive or otherwise. I think that the way to address this is not by a rigged judicial process but by passing better obscenity laws that have in mind as their first principles not moral scolding but the protection of porn performers, and that clearly lay down what is accepted and what is not rather than leaving those judgments to the whim of a given prosecutor."
Closing: Many of us feel that attacks on copyright infringement should not be as strident as they currently are. When the industries equate copyright infringement with kiddie porn, frankly ... kiddie porn gets a free pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I was not trying debunk the author, but only noting that in the area of obscenity there is so much subjectivity involved that in many circumastances what is and what is not obscene is not easily determined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feasibility
Sufficient is, of course, subjective to the subject. However, I propose a simple test to anyone promoting legislation on the use of computers. Produce a feasibility study of your target operating under the proposed constraints and get it approved by engineers from outside your organization and affiliates.
Failure to do this means that the law will not have the effects you intend, at which point you ought to be dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feasibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying = Patronage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Produce all the trash Hollydud wants. Any time the quality of humor is so bad that it takes canned laughter to tell you where the punch line is, that so insults my intelligence to the point that it offends me.
So tell me why I should pay for something I can't stand due to subpar quality and over use of commercials? I seem to be missing something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, we both love Big Bang Theory, which is classic 3 wall, and ridiculously funny.
I got her to try The Muppet Show, and she likes it. Again, pure 3 wall with laugh track.
If you are laughing at the comedy, you don't really hear the laugh track. As you point out, it's more a question of quality than it is of format.
As an aside, part of the point of the laugh track is to have the cast perform the episode in front of a live, adoring audience to boost their performance. Not that they need to put the laughs in the final cut, but you know, that's how they think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Full movie library from as many studios that want my money.
- TV shows with current seasons(past ones too) to watch with new episodes coming out like normal.
- Can watch it on any of my devices (PS3, xBox, computer, iPod/Pad/Phone, ect.)
- New movies with no stupid release windows
- I'll even deal with Hulu-style commercials, 30 seconds in the beginning and 30 at the end for movies. TV can keep the 3 commercials segments.
- Want even more of my money? Give me the ability to watch just released movies the next day after they come out in theaters. I'll even pay a little premium to keep those movies unlocked to me to watch just like everything else.
- Give me an "Offline Mode" and have the shows I like download to my computers so i dont need to always use the internet connection. (have shows pre-download during the night and use wifi to stream to devices)
Do you see what I did there? $100+ per month. For one person for what amounts to a super version of Netflix + Hulu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you see what I did there? $100+ per month. For one person for what amounts to a super version of Netflix + Hulu.
The movie studios and TV studios would probably each demand over $100/month for what you're asking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Produce all the trash Hollydud wants. Any time the quality of humor is so bad that it takes canned laughter to tell you where the punch line is, that so insults my intelligence to the point that it offends me.
So tell me why I should pay for something I can't stand due to subpar quality and over use of commercials? I seem to be missing something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fer sure, fer sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child pornography and obscenity
that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
And the rest of the definition requires the depiction to be obscene under the Miller test.
So my point still stands: Nonobscene virtual child pornography is protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Being one myself)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean you can't break multi-level strong encryption in a matter of minutes by being smarter than the person who used it? I'm shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content Cartel is founded on tax fraud
They have been cheating on their taxes for decades with tricks like the Double Dutch Sandwich and the newer Irish Arrangement.
These companies should be liquidated, the management thrown in prison and the copyrights returned to the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]