US Chamber Of Commerce: Bollywood Is So Successful Without Strong Copyrights That It Will Fail Unless India Strengthens Its Copyrights
from the wtf? dept
The US Chamber of Commerce, the giant lobbying organization who led the fight for SOPA/PIPA, is apparently so invested in "must have stronger copyright laws" that it doesn't even bother making sense any more. It's released a bizarre statement claiming that India needs stronger copyright laws, because Bollywood is so successful. Right upfront, it notes how successful things have been:Boasting the largest film industry in the world, the creative sector lies at the heart of the Indian culture and economy. As one of India’s largest employment sectors, an endless array of local professionals from technical, theatrical, and creative backgrounds are helping churn out 1,000 films in more than 20 languages annually.You'd think those are signs that copyright law was working (largest film industry in the world, largest employment sectors, over 1,000 films produced annually -- about double Hollywood) and that this would imply that whatever level of copyright there is in India -- which is supposed to be an incentive to creativity -- was doing a decent job. But, no, apparently it's all broken.
The government, however, must improve national intellectual property (IP) laws and enforcement if it is going to seize on this opportunity and gain recognition in the global market and further empower local creators.Hmm. Wait, you just said that it's the world's largest film industry and an unqualified success. So, why does it need to improve those laws and enforcement?
Specifically, Indian copyright law is unclear with the 2012 Copyright Act amendments further complicating and contradicting previous rule of law. Furthermore, the 2012 Act provides for broad exceptions that are incompatible with international norms. Also measuring relatively loware enforcement efforts, which are weak in application and don’t provide widely available civil and procedural remedies for copyright infringement.And, yet, this laxity incentivized the creation of nearly double the films that Hollywood produces. Perhaps -- and I'm just suggesting things here -- the "international norms" and the higher levels of enforcement are holding back the industries elsewhere. If anything, this report seems to suggest that other countries should move towards broad exceptions, since it appears to have been quite successful in India.
Furthermore, much of the paper seems to suggest that India needs to fix its copyright laws to embrace the international opportunity for its films -- but that (again) makes no sense. India's IP laws don't apply outside of India, so they have no impact on the international opportunities, which are governed by other IP laws. And, again, if the industry is doing great in India (with little enforcement and greater exceptions), doesn't this indicate that India should push for the same elsewhere to better embrace that international opportunity?
It's quite a world in which the US Chamber of Commerce seems to be arguing that an example of a success story should lead to that successful model emulating less successful markets. I don't know how much money the MPAA pays the US Chamber of Commerce for these kinds of pieces, but it's not getting its money's worth.
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: bollywood, copyright, india, success
Companies: chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Personally I'm guessing they are either trying to get rid of a competitor by bringing it down to hollywood levels, and/or get rid of a perfect example that proves that more copyright enforcement with stricter laws isn't the way to more creation and sales, and instead it's the direct opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-18/majority-of-locally-made-australian-television-content- is-news/4763810
So we had better stop all this free advertising for these shows and kill the industry. The entertainment industry needs more censorship of their products, that way less people will see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know where the US Chamber of Commerce pulls their logic (or lack thereof) from.
[ 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:
Go try watching a random current movie that's made there. They're comically horrid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, isn't that how you define success for American movies? Are you now moving the goalposts because the results don't match your agenda, or are you going to finally give us an objective means to measure whether something is successful?
"They're comically horrid."
Sorry, your personal tastes don't matter when assessing the output of a foreign culture. Let me guess, you're one of those people who think that your personal taste dictates everything that should be made?
They're certainly lower budget than American movies, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Most American output is crap, and there's enough people watching these things outside of India to demonstrate that there's a market even if you don't like them (e.g. Bollywood movies regularly break the top 10 in the UK, despite never being press screened or even shown outside of certain cities).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, larger population do not necessary mean larger market for movies, at least not in a linear relationship like ootb suggested below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously they're doing things all wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
Basic economics is that larger numbers of people produce more, but it's not necessarily linear, and that figure is called "productivity". What the hell did you DO in college, anyway, that missed elementary knowledge?
Therefore your argument falls flat as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
Just because you produce a turd every day doesn't make you productive or mean you produced anything of value. *sigh* I got caught in another troll trap didn't I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
No, you just made an ass of yourself by trying to argue against sheer fact. Four times the population should -- if the simplistic measure that Mike makes is valid -- mean four times the production. It's not. Hollwood produces TWICE as much per person, roughly.
Myopic Mike bamboozled you again. You guys are pretty feeble to continue to fall for his line, when it's EASILY disproved.
And see my later. I didn't even bother getting to money value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
Sheer fact, Blinky, Sheer Fact. [citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
Yet you insist on using a linear calculation in declaring what the situation "should" be.Basic economics is that larger numbers of people produce more, but it's not necessarily linear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, Mike: India has 1,210,193,422 people! Should be FOUR times Hollywood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than just jealousy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, compare amounts of money, particularly international.
Perhaps Chamber of Commerce is tactfully alluding to Bollywood's low productivity and low rates of return on investment and showing how those can be brought UP. -- I'm sure to be talking over your head with that last item, since you believe that "sunk (or fixed) costs" for making movies can be totally ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also, compare amounts of money, particularly international.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ones I found especially telling: those comments that describe firsthand how top heavy the wealth concentration is in Hollywood. Clinging to what they have and trying to get more is what drives the "leaders". In fact, they are not leading anywhere but down.
I would love to know more about the wealth and revenue distribution in Bollywood. My guess is that it is less lucrative on a per production basis, but more evenly distributed. Again a guess: since the pie is much bigger, smaller slices are just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like the rest of society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, someone help me out here...
Can someone help me out here... shouldn't the US Chamber of Commerce be talking about - oh I don't know - laws the US needs?
What business do they have telling another country, in another contintent, what laws they need?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, someone help me out here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, someone help me out here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, someone help me out here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, someone help me out here...
Actually they should be talking about laws the US DOESN'T NEED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, someone help me out here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why's he so scared of dissenting views? Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can use your weasel words, but you still have not shown any proof that you do not cheat on all of your exams. What are you scared of, what have you got to hide?
Went wont you answer my simple questions?
I Guess this means that I win.
You are to gutless to show proof.
Go back to your Mommies basement and try to find a life you loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Typing on a smartphone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Typing on a smartphone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Woman is 53 but looks 27!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
WHAT NORMS?? THERE WERE/ARE no normality between most of the countries..NOT even RUSSIA acknowledges the USA copy rights..
Where is that 301 list?? THAT is the list that says WHAt countries do not accept our LAWS..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To scared of me to show proof?
Go on, run away again. Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The opportunity is expansion into international markets. Also, the push for adoption of international norms makes sense now. Of course their statement could have absolutely no merit. This statement could be mistaken as well for some reason I can't figure out because I lack the required knowledge in the relevant laws and past precedents.
That being said, I don't think you can allow yourself to take the easy path here and simply label what they said as making no sense. So far I have read with delight your posts and your analyses generally seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I can't wait for your discussion of their actual message, and not the surely-inadvertent straw man you erected instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And any country producing such gems as 'Jersey Shore' cannot possibly complain about the local output of any other country!
Disclaimer: I know the UK has 'The Only Way Is Essex' (TOWIE).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The idea that an industry is growing rapidly and that they need to change their laws to help that growth are at odds with each other. Obviously if there is rapid growth, the laws are working just fine.
I guess US Chamber's idea is that their growth would be even bigger. Considering it has long been the biggest film market in the world, whatever it's doing, it's doing it right and we should be changing our laws to match their norms.
Of course, we would never let other countries set the example for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you read a little further...
"Furthermore, much of the paper seems to suggest that India needs to fix its copyright laws to embrace the international opportunity for its films -- but that (again) makes no sense. India's IP laws don't apply outside of India, so they have no impact on the international opportunities, which are governed by other IP laws. And, again, if the industry is doing great in India (with little enforcement and greater exceptions), doesn't this indicate that India should push for the same elsewhere to better embrace that international opportunity? "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike hates this post so much that he's going out of his way to censor it: http://tr.im/44w44
the next edition will be out very soon.
How hard will he work to hide that from you too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights in Bollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Based on what evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bollywood is successful precisely because they do NOT have strong copyright protections. Bollywood is successful WITHOUT lobbying for brutally excessive copyright laws. Their film industry is effectively DOUBLE the size of Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They dont OVER CHARGE/over pay, TO MAKE AND BUILD EVERYTHING.
they dont Control the WHOLe process, which means they dont Own the WHOLE distribution system, Theaters, and OVER CHARGE ITSELF to show there is no profit.
Their sales and profits are based on THERE LOCAL area, not world wide, and that Every human has to PAY to see it 1 time.
their people probably get paid 1 time, and NOT every time a movie is shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Bolly dont do allot of STUPID things Hollywood does.."
Define "stupid". I'll bet that they make a lot of things according to whichever definition you choose that are as dumb as you random capitalisations.
They do make a lot of 3 hour movies with 40 minute plots that are dragged out by musical sequences rather than action sequences, but even then they seem to be making more action stuff now. I'm no expert, but it's movies from the subcontinent that have had most of the silliest gifs/memes I've seen in recent years (though they may be technically Tamil / whatever sometimes rather than "Bollwood", depending on how you define it).
"Their sales and profits are based on THERE LOCAL area, not world wide, and that Every human has to PAY to see it 1 time."
Some random links from very quick Google searches: Not worldwide?
https://www.odeon.co.uk/bollywood/
https://www.amctheatres.com/indian
https://www.finder.com .au/bollywood-movies-on-netflix-australia
Every human has to pay?
https://en.softonic.com/solutions/what-are-the-best-torrent-sites-for-downloading-bollywood-movi es
"their people probably get paid 1 time, and NOT every time a movie is shown."
Based on what, since you're clearly wrong about everything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
consider a movie industry that controls every thing, from the Creation of the movie, even with changes so they DONT copy a Book directly, making changes.. To the Audio engendering, sipping, handling, ALL distribution(if they dont have a contract with the corp, they WONT get the film, until its out of Circulation).. Then over charging for everything from beginning to END, avg salary for a Hair care person is about $1000 per day.(Iv had friends work for the industry)
KNow how they ship the movies around, BEFORE digital?? LIBRARY CLASS MAIL..REALLY CHEAP.. but its a great write off.
The movie corps got a big WIN, in WWII with our gov. To produce Propaganda films, and OTHER things since. Some MAJOR IRS savings...and they are abusing it, ALLOT..
Corps int he USA have a strange concept that Profit and loss based on Estimates WORK when talking to the IRS. And Movie figures are based on World wide distribution..
Then showing that they have contracts to pay out to the actors PER showing, gives them leeway to keep ALLOT of the profits..
I hope you know that the IRS has major problems tracking ANY corporations taxes..There computers are history, and no REAL updates have been done in over 20 years for the software.
(one reason why they go after Citizens before the corps, and when they DO go after the corps, its YEARS after.)
Good luck have fun..
And your references are for Bollywood..but understand...THAT'S LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.. They wont make anything in the USA unless they hook up with the Distribution system in the USA...MPAA/RIAA...there is NO international trademark system..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And your references are for Bollywood..but understand...THAT'S LOCAL DISTRIBUTION"
The links I posting to show theatrical distribution in the UK, US and Australia are local to Indian producers?
"They wont make anything in the USA "
That's production, not distribution.
"unless they hook up with the Distribution system in the USA"
Like the one example I linked to of them doing exactly that? There's more if you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey this is an amazing website you would love to see my <a href="https://downloadhatke.blogspot.com">Ragnikanth movie in Tamil </a> site as well as
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]