Studios Fed Up With Funding The MPAA: Changes May Be Coming
from the about-time dept
A few years ago, the major record labels finally started to realize that, perhaps, shoveling many millions of dollars to the RIAA was a waste of good money, and they severely cut back funds. You may have noticed that, while the RIAA had taken the lead on the copyright front in the first decade of the new century, over the past few years, it's been a lot quieter than the MPAA. It appears that the MPAA may be about to go through a similar transition. Just a few weeks ago, we pointed out that the MPAA seemed to be desperately trying to justify its existence by doubling down on ridiculous and misleading claims about "piracy" and "content theft" rather than actually helping studios adapt to the modern era. We also noted that MPAA boss Chris Dodd was on something of an apology tour after the MPAA was caught completely off guard by the Sony Hack and did basically nothing about it, seriously pissing off execs at Sony.There's a reason Dodd was groveling. It appears that the studios are finally realizing that maybe the MPAA isn't working in their best interests after all, but is just focused on justifying its own existence:
In a behind-the-scenes drama, the Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton last month told industry colleagues of a plan to withdraw from the movie trade organization, according to people who have been briefed on the discussions. He cited the organization's slow response and lack of public support in the aftermath of the attack on Sony and its film “The Interview,” as well as longstanding concerns about the cost and efficacy of the group.While the MPAA convinced Sony to stay in, it appears that the major studios are thinking it's about time the MPAA shift its focus -- and tighten its belt a bit:
If adopted, their still emerging propositions might jolt the group into line with the new realities of a changing entertainment business. They might, for instance, open the association to new members and expand its interests to include television programs or digital content. They might also reduce the heavy annual contribution of more than $20 million that is required of each of the six member companies: Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Sony.The report notes that they might even give up their super fancy DC headquarters (the "Jack Valenti Building") which is just blocks from the White House.
Of course, it's not entirely clear how the MPAA's focus will actually change. It wouldn't be surprising to find some studio execs still want to double down on backwards-thinking, anti-internet campaigns. But, at least some seem to recognize that Hollywood hasn't kept up with the times, and that's partly because the MPAA kept focusing them on the last war, rather than on updating for the internet era.
Kevin Tsujihara, the chief executive of Warner Bros., said he, like Mr. Dodd, welcomed an examination of the organization that would mirror a similar review of cost and mission at his company. “Now is as good a time as any” to look at fundamental questions, Mr. Tsujihara said in an interview. He added: “We haven’t, as an industry, evolved fast enough.”And, as we've pointed out, it really seems bizarre that the MPAA spends so much on an entire "content protection" division. At least some of the studios appear to be questioning the value of that approach:
But those briefed on the position of several companies said virtually all the studios have chafed lately at the high cost of maintaining the M.P.A.A., along with its worldwide antipiracy and market access operations, particularly as Sony, Warner and others are cutting staff and costs.Frankly, as we've argued for years, it would be great if the MPAA actually became a forward-looking organization that looked to help the industry adapt to the modern era. It appears the organization is going through an inevitable crisis after years of making bad bets. Hopefully, it recognizes that embracing the future, rather than fighting it, is the way forward.
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: chris dodd, content protection, hollywood, lobbying, michael lynton, sony hack, studios
Companies: mpaa, sony, warner bros.
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They might, for instance, open the association to new members and expand its interests to include television programs or digital content.
This can be both good and incredibly bad. If the MPAA actually shifts its myopic sight from the piracy bogeyman it can be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Surly this is vooodoo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potential
This is the great tragedy of the MPAA. Trade associations can actually be a force for the betterment not only of the member companies but of the industry and society in general. The MPAA has chosen to go down a different path.
However, given that the MPAA is really just a handful of movie companies, I suspect that its institutional attitude is a pretty accurate reflection of the attitude of those companies. So I don't really blame the MPAA, I blame the member companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potential
I think it has formed a weird two-way street, though. As humans we are really great at at making ourselves slaves to damaged systems that we ourselves built. So while the MPAA's existence and overall attitude is the fault of the studios that forged it, it's now an entity with its own momentum that feeds back into and shapes the attitudes of its member studios.
"Ownership culture" is no joke. If studio behaviour was purely rooted in cynicism and greed, it would look different: twenty years ago they would have seen the changing winds and by now they'd be experts at rapidly adapting their business model to the online world. Instead they are fixated on this delusional idea that the best way to make money is to enforce copyright, and it's not working -- but it persists because the culture of ownership is so deeply engrained.
So now the MPAA keeps them all trapped. Any one studio could enter revolution-mode and update itself for the times at the hands of one smart, savvy CEO with the guts to try it. But what are the odds of that happening at six studios at once? It won't. And if one tries, the other five become its united opponents. And so the culture of ownership lives on, with the whole industry orbiting the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potential
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Potential
So any change that involves risk becomes less and less acceptable the bigger an organization becomes. Especially a change that seems radical or the opposite of what the business is or seems to be built on. Such a radical change seems to question the very principles of nature. The railroads should have recognized they were in the transportation business and embraced trucking and air freight.
A startup can take big risks. They can even completely change their business plan and succeed where they would have failed. A startup can also question the existing way things are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Potential
Indeed yes! This is the small company's superpower. It's also why most true innovations come from small companies, not big ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potential
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So don't expect it to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only did the logo infuriate the then-director of the FBI, the message still continues to lie to the American public regarding the FBI's role.
Most notably, people don't understand what criminal copyright infringement means, and thus, simply believe the message includes them.
Even if the studios ditched the MPAA, it doesn't mean things will change. UltraViolet has nothing to do with the MPAA and is one of the worst forms of DRM in the movie industry.
If this industry wants to adapt, there are three easy steps to do it, and laugh all the way to the bank:
1) Treat your customers as if they paid, not "stolen", the movie.
2) Create a single website to stream movies. We don't go to specific theaters to see a specific distributor's movie, so it makes sense we go to one website to stream movies.
3) LOWER. THE. DAMN. PRICE. If this needs explaining, maybe it's the studios that need to be replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The single website idea is like saying let's have a single television network, and it must be NBC, to provide all television content.
As for lowering the price, that could be done by making less expensive and more risky movies. Stop making $200 Million remakes of sequels of old movies that were based on even older TV shows. Invest in original movies and programming. Yes, some of it will fail. Even if the business is about making money, that only continues to happen if you are also making art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But if they did, I would throw my money at it. Companies want to milk the consumer for every last penny while having total control and none of the responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not just one of the worst forms of DRM, but one of the worst forms of content delivery, period. Seriously, I was truly astonished at how bad the system is from an engineering standpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20m x 6 = 120m. WTF is their budget like? Are they doing "Hollywood Accounting" too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today I no longer care about what hot movie is coming out. I couldn't name you one singer from these times and I'm happy with that. Funny I went from buying $500 to $600 a year to nothing. I've had plenty enough time now without them that I've developed a totally different lifestyle. I've thoroughly disconnected from the Hollywood hype machine and I have no plans on returning. The damage has been done. They've totally lost a customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much is it worth to the MPAA to keep Sony?
I wonder how much the MPAA is now paying Sony to keep them in their racket. It would look very bad to have them lose such a prominent member.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I volunteer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bang per buck
As an anti-filesharing organization, the Dutch group BREIN has made a much greater impact on the P2P landscape than the MPAA, and has done so at a tiny fraction of the MPAA's budget.
Such an arrangement could be the future trend -- Hollywood financing small local anti-P2P outfits in various countries around the world, rather than spending a ton of money lobbying Washington politicians and bureaucrats to rubber-stamp names on a list and hope that other countries panic at the sight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classic Frankenstein Story...
Didn't see that coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]