When Analyzing Cord Cutting Options, Most TV Analysts Continue To Pretend Piracy Simply Doesn't Exist

from the giant-pink-mutant-vampire-elephant-in-the-room dept

With the arrival of services like Dish's SlingTV, Sony's Playstation Vue, and looming standalone offerings from HBO and Showtime, 2015 is finally the year that Internet video finally starts gaining some serious traction. As such, we're now seeing oodles of breathless analysis focused on what this means for you and whether now is the time to cut the cord. Usually in these fluffy pieces, there's a heavy emphasis on the fact that once you've subscribed to all of these streaming services, you're probably paying the same as you already paid for traditional cable. Gosh -- it's almost as if the same people responsible for setting absurd cable TV rates are setting streaming video rates!

But there's one recurrent theme among TV sector analysts that has always annoyed and amused the hell out of me in equal measure. Almost all of the "cord cutting" analysis I've read -- whether it's a local news outlet, the Associated Press or a major paper -- goes out of its way to pretend that piracy doesn't exist. As in, when discussing the options available to consumers, piracy isn't even mentioned as a commonplace practice. Since the pay TV sector competes with piracy (even though they've long been loathe to admit it), that always strikes me as immensely myopic.

So it has become a sort of ritualistic entertainment for me to watch writers go miles out of their way not to acknowledge piracy for fear they might be seen as condoning it. And as streaming options increase, stories breathlessly warning consumers that they won't save money with Internet video (if you conveniently ignore that piracy is a real thing) are simply everywhere. It's like they're being built on an assembly line in Topeka.

One specific case in point is a well-circulated bit of analysis over at the Wall Street Journal, where author Geoffrey A. Fowler proudly proclaims that despite recent progress in streaming options, cable TV still "beats the Internet." To prove his point, he offers up this handy graphic explaining that you'll still wind up paying a ton of money if you subscribe to every Internet video service under the sun: Yes, "what's missing" are all the things millions of people are pirating. But we can't mention that because -- why? We'll be smitten by the gods? It's now standard practice in the media to pretend that piracy doesn't exist, then pretend that none of your readers are smart enough to notice your glaring omission. Seriously, even the barest mention of piracy is mysteriously absent from an ocean of similar stories, all claiming to give viewers a full accounting of the TV viewing options in 2015. There are simply countless examples of this, where authors profess to be asking the hard questions about cord cutting without mentioning the giant orange elephant standing in the corner:

"But there's one whopping big question that nobody's asking: Can you replace cable with streaming Internet TV and get the same experience — and save money? After all, if you can't make the switch without missing your favorite TV shows and saving money, then what's the point?"

Except they can! Through piracy! One gets the sense that media outlets feel like if they so much as even acknowledge that piracy is a real thing -- they'll somehow be taken as advocates for piracy. It's as if piracy is some kind of angry and strange Lovecraftian god, and even mentioning its name will invite unspeakable terror upon the local village. And it's not just the media -- I've seen countless professional firms paid millions to analyze the state of the pay TV sector similarly just pretend that piracy doesn't exist -- in large part because tracking these users can be difficult to impossible. As such, it's best to just pretend piracy doesn't exist and isn't even worth trying to monitor. Nobody will notice, right?

If you were to do an honest analysis of cord cutting options in 2015, you'd note that most cord cutters are doing everything and anything to avoid skyrocketing cable rates. That may involve subscribing to Netflix and Amazon Prime streaming, but it also may include using BitTorrent and a Plex media server to pirate all of their favorite HBO and Showtime shows. I don't advocate this behavior (did I need to say that?), but if you're seriously going to discuss the current state of pay television (and how we can improve it) -- ignoring the standard practice of millions of frustrated, potential customers strikes me as a very peculiar type of willful blindness. It's a form of willful, collective obliviousness that only helps the cable industry pretend that piracy isn't a useful metric in determining just how badly they're failing to meet consumer demand.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, cord cutting, media, piracy, streaming, tv, video

Indian Film Industry To Punish Pirates Paying Customers With 3-Month Film Release Boycott

from the baby,-bathwater dept

As we've noted countless times, diminishing the impact of piracy isn't exactly rocket science. Give consumers what they want at a reasonable price, and more often than not you'll be able to minimize piracy's impact on your business model. But as we've seen just as often, that logic is a bridge too far for many entertainment industry executives, who've relentlessly instituted all manner of more "creative" solutions to try and retain legacy power in shifting markets. Why give consumers what they want when you can insult, cajole, sue and otherwise harass your paying customers, then blame everything but your own rigid thinking?

The latest ingenious solution comes courtesy of India's Tamil Film Producer's Council (TFPC), which is considering a plan to stop releasing movies entirely in the misguided belief that this is going to somehow stop people from pirating. Apparently, the logic goes, if you stop releasing films for three months, the lack of things to pirate (ignoring a century of previous content, of course) will magically stop piracy forever! Ingenious!:

"Piracy will automatically stop when there's no content. When we stop film releases, say for three months, the movie pirates will go out of business. We are looking into this option because film producers have suffered heavily in the last 24 months," (said) Kalaipuli S Thanu, TFPC president."

One, there's just a blistering amount of hubris involved in believing that you can turn an entire culture's art creation on and off like some kind of spigot. Like they were scolding a kitten, you'll recall the RIAA often used to state that if people didn't stop pirating content, creators would just stop making music -- as if the business side of the equation could simply wipe all art creation from the face of the earth. That some still think they can unilaterally stop art creation as a "punishment" for piracy perfectly exemplifies the distorted thinking responsible for the global entertainment industry's ongoing struggles.

Two, the report notes that just a three-month ban on film production would impact the release of some 36 Indian films, which would then be harmed by the fact that they'd be shoveled in a more crowded release window. In addition to harming content creators, TFPC can't apparently understand that stopping the release of all films hurts its paying customers. Local filmmaker "Cheran" has a different suggested course of action, involving crazy concepts like modifying release windows and (gasp) lowering prices:

"If original DVD of a new film is available for Rs.50, why would anyone think of buying a pirated copy?" (asked Indian Filmmaker Cheran. "We all know the quality of pirated prints. I've sold nearly Rs.10 lakh (or around $16,800) DVDs of my film in the first two days," he said."I don't mind if one person buys and shows it to his entire family. As long as people don't watch pirated version of any film, I'm happy to release my films on DVD. Most households today have access to digital TV, so new films can be released via direct-to-home medium as well," he added."

Hopefully somebody at the TFPC hears Cheran's outlandish suggestions above the din of indignant entitlement.

Filed Under: boycott, films, india, piracy
Companies: tamil film producer's council, tfpc

Despite Lack Of Evidence It Will Help, Australia Still Planning To Bring In Data Retention, Still Not Clear If It Could Be Used Against Copyright Infringement

from the learning-the-hard-way dept

Last year, we noted that one danger of bringing in data retention in Australia is that stored metadata might end up being used for all kinds of purposes that have nothing to do with fighting "terrorism," its principal justification. One particular concern is that it could be used to hunt for people downloading files illegally. Several months later, the signals are still very mixed. On the one hand, we have the following, as reported by the Guardian:

Authorities are not interested in using the Abbott government's proposed data retention scheme to go after internet pirates and would be prevented from doing so by the commonwealth ombudsman, the assistant commissioner of the Australian federal police, Tim Morris, has said.

Morris also said any changes to the way metadata is collected and used would have to be approved by the ombudsman.

But that guarantee is less than watertight because of the following:

The ombudsman, Colin Neave, has told Guardian Australia his office would not play a formal oversight role in the scheme and would give advice only at the attorney general’s discretion.

The Greens senator Scott Ludlam, noted that the ombudsman's oversight provided only "weak" protection against function creep, and that the public could not therefore depend on Morris’s assurances that the scope of the scheme would not expand in the future.

Whether or not stored metadata will be used against copyright infringement may be in doubt, but it seems that the Australian government's intention to bring in data retention is not, despite the fact that when asked on multiple occasions for evidence the move was justified, it has been unable to provide any. That's not really surprising given the Danish experience that keeping this kind of data didn't help, and may actually have hindered police investigations. Sadly, it looks like Australia is determined to discover this fact the hard and expensive way.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, copyright, data retention, george brandis, piracy, surveillance

Apparently The Best Way To Decrease Movie Piracy Is To Get Rid Of The Oscars

from the correlation dept

As you may have heard, last night was the Oscars -- Hollywood's favorite back-patting celebration. However, as a recent study found, films that were nominated for Oscars saw the number of unauthorized downloads and streams surge, as people wanted to make sure they had seen these celebrated films. Films like American Sniper and Selma saw a massive increase in unauthorized downloads after being nominated. The company that did this study, Irdeto, argues that these unauthorized downloads represent a major loss for the films' producers -- but it seems like there's another explanation: the MPAA really ought to be targeting the Oscars for encouraging infringement.

After all, for the past few years, the MPAA has been on a rampage trying to blame other third parties, like Google, which Hollywood insists is leading to greater infringement -- and yet, here's pretty obvious proof of another "cause" of piracy. Sure, one could argue (as we have, many times) that the lack of authorized, legitimate versions of these offerings may be contributing to the unauthorized downloads -- but the MPAA has insisted over and over again that this isn't fair. So, we'll take the MPAA at its word, and assume that the real culprit is "the Oscars" itself. Clearly, it's time to get rid of that major promoter of piracy. Just a few weeks ago, we noted that nearly all of the Oscar-nominated films were quickly finding their way online (in HD format, no less), and it's pretty clear that there would be a lot less demand if they weren't nominated.

Sure, one might argue, that the more popular a film is, and the more attention it gets, the more piracy will be the result -- but, again, the MPAA angrily dismisses such claims, insisting that it must be other factors leading to piracy. And, from the Irdeto study, it certainly appears that one major factor is... the Oscars.

I expect that the legal geniuses at the MPAA are now huddling in a circle figuring out which Attorney General they can convince to front a legal assault on the Oscars -- and this will all come out in the next batch of hacked emails....

Filed Under: causes, copyright, infringement, movies, oscars, piracy, satire
Companies: mpaa

MPAA's Lies About Films Being Available Online Easily Debunked In Seconds

from the why-do-they-even-bother? dept

Stan McCoy was, until recently, the lead negotiator on "intellectual property" for the US Trade Representative -- making him the main guy behind ACTA and the horrific intellectual property sections of the TPP and TTIP agreements. Then, last year, he jumped ship exactly where you'd expect him to go: becoming a lobbyist for the MPAA. McCoy, as we've noted, has a history of condescension and mocking towards anyone expressing concern for "the public," rather than "the industry" which pays his bills.

So, it should come as little surprise at all that, in his current role, he's out there trotting out more bogus claims that ignore reality, in order to push the agenda of his employer. In a blog post discussing his appearance on a panel in the UK, McCoy insists that he's busting the myth that there's piracy because the content isn't available from authorized sources:

We need to bust the myth that legal content is unavailable. Creative industries are tirelessly experimenting with new business models that deliver films, books, music, TV programs, newspapers, games and other creative works to consumers. In Europe, there are over 3,000 on-demand audio-visual services available to European citizens. According to a recent KPMG report, 86% of the most popular and highest quality films and television series are available across legal digital platforms to UK consumers.

Okay, so this is McCoy's attempt at mythbusting. And it fails, pretty miserably, as TorrentFreak's Ernesto showed with just a little bit of effort. He went and looked at the top 10 most downloaded films last week and busted McCoy's weak attempt at mythbusting:
Click through for TorrentFreak's clickable chart And, of course the KPMG study that McCoy relies on is quite misleading as well, since it actually found that over 80% of the top movies are not available on Netflix, by far the most popular service. That means that if people actually wanted to see the movies they want, they face a fragmented, confusing market, in which they'd need to sign up for a bunch of different services with different limitations to actually see what they want.

In other words, despite the MPAA pretending otherwise again and again, it remains a simple fact that the lack of availability and convenience on authorized services has a difficult time competing with the availability and convenience of unauthorized offerings. The same thing has been true for well over a decade. The music industry has mostly figured this out, so why can't the movie industry?

Of course, what McCoy can't really say is the truth: the movie industry can't readily adapt because it will piss off the theaters. The recording industry couldn't more fully embrace the internet until the old record stores finally lost their power, and the studios are held back by the theaters nowadays. Of course, the MPAA could and probably should be trying to help transition to the future by pushing back against the theaters' outdated views and explaining to them how they can also easily compete with home viewing by providing a better in-theater experience. But that takes real work. Instead, the MPAA's focusing on "content protection" because that way it retains a reason to exist.

Filed Under: availability, copyright, innovation, movies, piracy, releases, stan mccoy, windowing
Companies: mpaa

The Many Confusions Of The Internet Is Not The Answer, By Andrew Keen

from the what's-the-question-again? dept

Any book with a title like The Internet Is Not the Answer leads one to wonder what the question is, and whether there's a "right" answer to it.

The book's author -- Internet entrepreneur, talk show host, and social critic Andrew Keen – is a little dodgy on these details. What he gives us is a tour of the Internet Age's problems – the loss of jobs, privacy, and copyright residuals. The central question at which he seems to be driving is how to build a digital economy that does not result in ruined lives and radical disparities in wealth and power, but the precise question in Mr. Keen's book remains elusive.

So does the answer. The book does have a concluding chapter called "The Answer," and it is apparently "all of the above": more government oversight; "voluntary, market-led solutions"; and an effort to get Internet slackers to accept a new "Bill of Responsibilities that establishes a social contract for every member of networked society." Keen does not, however, develop the specifics of such regulation, solutions, or contract, or of a communitarian ethic which would inform them. More critically, he seems little interested in positive solutions for information equity.

Keen is feted on the book jacket as "the Christopher Hitchens of the Internet" (complete with British accent and rhetorical swagger), but what he's selling is more entertainment than critical analysis. His book is chockablock with amusing and sometimes telling anecdotes about the quirks and excesses of the new digital mandarins – Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, et al. – but provides little specificity about the problem as Keen himself frames it: "As we all step into this brave new digital world, our challenge is to shape our networking tools before they shape us."

The book is short – 226 pages, essentially a compilation of dystopian Internet commentary over the last several years, with some original reporting – and skips entirely the major skirmishes in this space. The seminal network neutrality battle now coming to a head in Washington D.C. goes entirely undiscussed. He complains about how the Internet has become "monetized," but fails to address the primary drivers of that, including for example Comcast's extraction (extortion?) of extra fees to carry those Netflix programs requested by Comcast broadband subscribers. And while Keen devotes a chapter to online piracy and copyright, he omits any reference to Congress' recent addition of 20 years onto the copyright term, making information harder to find and more expensive to access, whether on the web or elsewhere. Aside from snarky references to Wikipedia as the province of white males with some sort of social adjustment disorder, there is scant attention paid to other attempts to carve non-monetized spaces out of the Internet's bounty.

Keen is at his best when he essays something akin to objective reporting. His chapter on the intellectual predecessors and development of the Internet is a quite useful addition to the literature. His chapter on privacy ("Chrystal Man") is also worthwhile, outlining the dark side of information utopia, how governments and corporations vacuum up and aggregate data on individuals, with obligatory stops along the way at Edward Snowden's NSA revelations and Facebook's emotion- manipulation experiments. He quotes reports about data broker Acxiom, for instance, which has "profiles of 75% of all Americans, each around five thousand data points that can be constructed and deconstructed" for both marketing and government surveillance purposes. What he does not do is indicate the sources of this data – the key question posed by recent Senate, FTC, and GAO reports – the phone and cable operators, credit card companies, and government agencies that feed information into these huge databases.

At times, Keen is stunningly naïve. "Elected governments exist so that we can shape the society in which we live," he writes, "There's no other alternative [sic] to controlling technological change." Yes, Congress should get right on it, and elected officials should lead. The only problem is that Congress is controlled by what Susan Crawford rightly calls a "mosh pit" of special interests. The 1996 Telecom Act took years to write, back when Congress still half-functioned, and the telco and cable corporations filed suit against the Act's regulations before the ink was dry on the Federal Register.

At no point does Keen give the reader a handle on the real-world issues along the divide between open access information and architecture on the one hand, and a "top down system that is concentrating wealth rather than spreading it" on the other. What Keen offers is a critique of the Silicon Valley's reigning libertarian ethic which is entertaining at times, but ultimately as facile and shallow as that ethic itself.

Chris Witteman is a telecommunications attorney in San Francisco.

Filed Under: andrew keen, internet, net neutrality, piracy, regulation

Australia Ratings Board Bans Hotline Miami 2; Developers Tell Australians To 'Just Pirate It'

from the BUT-WE-SAID-YOU-CAN'T-HAVE-IT! dept

In 2013, Australia boldly moved into the 20th century by finally allowing games targeted at gamers above the age of 15 (which still makes up a majority of gamers, despite the birth rate and the rise of mobile gaming) to reach their intended audience. Even with the new rating (15+), game developers still found themselves altering games to avoid the government's infantilizing banhammer.

The developers behind Hotline Miami 2 (Devolver Digital), the sequel to the Drive-inspired, synth-drenched, retro ode to twin-stick, top-down ultraviolence, is the latest to have a game banned in a country that loves banning creative works. Of course, the Australian ratings board doesn't call it a "ban." It simply refused classification, which is basically the same thing, only using bigger words.

The ratings board doesn't have a problem with the standard grade violence contained in Hotline Miami 2, but it does find the following (taken from the ratings board's report) to be a bit more than even adult Australians can handle:

In the sequence of game play footage titled Midnight Animal, the protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people, who collapse to the floor in a pool of copious blood, often accompanied by blood splatter. After stomping on the head of a fifth male character, he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks. He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him. This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasised by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black.

Rape -- even implied rape -- is a very touchy subject. While normal killing-type violence is considered perfectly acceptable, adding a bit of sexual violence puts it over the top. But there are two things to consider here. One aspect is exactly how "graphic" something that looks like the following can actually be:

Now, let's throw that all out, because maybe it's just rape that's the issue, no matter the graphical fidelity.

There's also context to consider.

The Classification Board was concerned with an opening sequence—the same sequence that caused uproar after being included in a demo—that depicts a man in a pig mask sexually assaulting a woman after slaughtering everyone else in the house. Which, yes, sounds pretty bad, until a director yells cut, and it turns out the entire scene is part of an exploitative cinematic recreation of the first game.

This didn't factor into the ratings board's decision, apparently. Just seeing rape depicted was enough to refuse classification. The ratings board -- which has previously allowed developers to alter games facing bans to alter aspects found especially objectionable -- also didn't consider the fact that Hotline 2's developers give the player the choice to skip this scene completely when playing.

Devolver Digital, to its credit, has refused to alter the game to fit the Australian rating board's sensibilities. But it still wants Australian gamers to play the new game. In a response to an Australian fan asking how he might get ahold of a copy, developer Jonatan Söderström said, "Just pirate it." [click picture for a larger version]

So, Devolver Digital gives the finger to the censors by giving away its own game. The networks used to bypass the "Australian tax" will also be used to bypass the Australian ratings board, meaning this attempted ban will have no effect -- like pretty much every ban ever.

Filed Under: australia, hotline miami 2, piracy, ratings
Companies: devolver digital

Analysis Of Pirated Oscar Movies Shows They're Almost All Available... In HD (And Not From Screeners)

from the because-of-course dept

As we've mentioned in the past, every year for over a decade, Andy Baio scours the internet to see what Oscar-nominated movies have been put online (the answer is usually almost all of them). He started this back in 2004, when the MPAA laughably claimed that the very first "screener" copy of a nominated movie had been put online. Baio realized that it was hardly the first and there were many more. His latest analysis is up and it shows that, yet again, nearly all nominated movies are available. He's actually kept the details of every year's search in a big Google spreadsheet.

There are some interesting findings in the data, including that screener copies don't matter much any more. For years, the MPAA -- which still can't get over its piracy obsession -- insisted that screener leaks were a huge problem. Back in 2003 the MPAA wanted to ban screener DVDs entirely, which pissed off a bunch of filmmakers who feared that their films wouldn't get voted on for the Oscars. Since then, they've focused on ridiculous proprietary systems that would only play on special DVD players -- which just pissed off viewers. In the last few years, they've just focused on watermarked DVDs, which means that when the videos inevitably leak, they can be tracked back to whose copy leaked -- like Ellen Degeneris' copies last year.

But, as Baio notes, in the online release market, screener copies aren't good enough:

But here’s the thing: screeners are stuck in the last decade. While we’re all streaming HD movies from iTunes or Netflix, the movie studios almost universally send screeners by mail on DVDs, which is forever stuck in low-resolution standard-definition quality. A small handful are sent in higher-definition Blu-ray.

This year, one Academy member received 68 screeners — 59 on DVD and only eight on Blu-ray. Only 13% of screeners were sent to voters in HD quality.

As a result, virtually any HD source is more prestigious than a DVD screener. And with the shift to online distribution, there’s an increasing supply of possible HD sources to draw from before screeners are ever sent to voters.

And of course, the data also shows that cammed copies (someone sitting in a theater with a camera filming it) are virtually non-existent here. This is another issue that we've covered for years, with the MPAA famously making up numbers out of thin air concerning how big a "problem" it was. But, of course, the quality on those copies suck, and so people focus on HD, which they inevitably get.

Of this year’s 36 nominated films, 34 already leaked online in some form — everything except Song of the Sea and Glen Campbell: I’ll Be Me.

But only 33% of those were leaked from screeners, down from a high of 89% in 2003 and 2004.

As he notes, with the MPAA stupidly focused on screeners, they think they're winning the battle, because here's the percentage of actual screeners leaked: So, I'm sure the content protection team at the MPAA are all excited about this. They're vanquishing the screener piracy monster. But as Baio points out, that's bullshit, because just as many films are leaking, but in HD quality from HD sources instead of screeners: While this year's figure is currently 89%, there's a decent chance it will go higher before the Oscars happen. As Baio notes, 44% of the films this year are HD sources, not from screeners or from retail releases.

In other words: all this effort from the "content protection" team at the MPAA yields absolutely no benefit at all.

Filed Under: andy baio, copyright, dvds, hd, movies, oscars, piracy, screeners
Companies: mpaa

Copyright Troll And Famed Movie Producer Nicolas Chartier Debunks Entire Hollywood Talking Point About Protecting The 'Little Guy'

from the it's-about-lining-his-own-pocket dept

Nicolas Chartier is the CEO of Voltage Pictures, a very high-profile movie studio, thanks mainly to producing some critically acclaimed films like Hurt Locker and Dallas Buyers Club. For the past five years, Chartier has also been known as an over-the-top, somewhat ridiculous copyright troll, thinking that it's smart to sue thousands of fans of his films. When this began, someone sent him a very polite email, explaining why he thought suing fans was a bad idea that might backfire, and Chartier responded by calling him a moron and a thief. Chartier doesn't seem particularly thoughtful, but is very, very emotional about this stuff.

The Hollywood Reporter has a big interview with Chartier where he continues to make ridiculous statements, often without any foundation, and also undermines Hollywood's carefully crafted narrative about how its fight against piracy is really about protecting the jobs of the little guys, the union workers who work on films. Creative Future, the astroturf group set up by Hollywood to push for stronger copyright laws and to attack innovative services that threaten its obsolete business model, likes to trot out the "little guys" who work on movies, and highlights that it's a partnership between the studios and the unions. Yet, in the interview Chartier repeats his attacks on union works in Hollywood and points out that he films outside of the country to avoid paying them:

Bruce Willis makes a million a day, but we make the movie because of Bruce Willis. But at the same time, when I see a union driver sitting for 12 hours and being really difficult, that's why we end up shooting a lot of movies in foreign countries. People don't understand that without movie stars making big money, there's no movie. It's nice to victimize the big stars, but we need that because otherwise we don't make the movie. I don't make the movie because of the driver.

Yup, this is all about the rich getting richer, and Chartier apparently has no problem admitting that he'd screw over the everyday workers on films when he can. The fight over these things has never been about the everyday worker. They get paid their standard rate no matter what the film does. The issue is over the fat cats at the top. Also, that line about the movie only getting made because of the stars? Yeah, that's not exactly true either. As we've discussed in the past, there's no evidence that having a big name movie star helps a film do any better. It's just because Hollywood is so sucked into this vortex of believing that a "name" makes a movie that it focuses on that. That isn't to say that good acting isn't important. Great actors can make a real difference, but the idea that a big name is necessary to make a big film simply isn't supported by the evidence.

But Chartier isn't big on evidence or facts. He just makes up whatever he wants -- like his claim that the day after they announced plans to sue Hurt Locker downloaders, people suddenly stopped downloading the movie:

And the day after we announced 20,000 lawsuits, the Internet downloads of Hurt Locker went down about 40 percent. So, you know, you frighten people and then they stop.

Yeah, that didn't happen. And, really, in this day and age, if you're still going to claim that every download is a lost sale, it suggests you haven't put much (if any) thought into what's going on:

Hurt Locker ended up winning six Oscars, but at the same time we had 8 million illegal downloads on the movie. And I was like, "Wow, you know, we barely reimbursed the movie and we had 8 million illegal downloads." Well, if everybody had given me one dollar, that would be 8 million dollars, and the movie cost 11, so we lost 80 percent of the movie to piracy. That cannot hold

Or, you know, there are people like me who didn't see the movie, but wanted to. And then you sued all those downloaders and it got crossed off the list of movies I would rent. Ditto for any other Voltage picture. To this day, I've never seen a single one of them, and I know I'm not the only person to do so. Those are true "lost sales" because I absolutely intended to pay to see the movie. But now I won't. Unlike most of the people who downloaded who never would have paid. It's like Chartier doesn't even understand what battle he's really fighting.

He should be looking for ways to get more people to see movies. Instead, he's fighting ghosts: people who would never pay. It's not too different from his fight against the everyday people who work on his movies. He's pushing to keep down how much they pay while happily paying stars many millions. While he may have a knack for picking good movies, he doesn't seem to have much business sense, always fighting the wrong fight.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dallas buyers club, hurt locker, movies, nicolas chartier, piracy, unions
Companies: voltage pictures

Hollywood Privately Acknowledges Six Strikes Program Isn't Doing Much, Guaranteeing It Will Get Much Worse

from the bigger-and-better-is-bad dept

We're getting close to the two-year anniversary of the Center for Copyright Information's (CCI) "six strikes" anti-piracy regime. The program, with cooperation from the biggest ISPs, involves forwarding on copyright infringement notices to consumers and punishing users via a "graduated response" program. Said responses vary by ISP but can include a user being temporarily locked behind a walled garden filter until they acknowledge receipt of one-sided "educational" materials, or having your connection throttled temporarily until you admit you've been naughty. If innocent, you have to pay a $35 fine to defend yourself.

While the program might seem effective in scaring little Billy straight once his parents notice their connection doesn't work, it clearly hasn't had much of a meaningful impact on piracy rates. Unsurprisingly, the entertainment industry argues this is because the measures don't go far enough; nobody tracks offenders between ISPs, absolutely nothing happens to a user that violates all six strikes (the program simply stops and no more notifications are sent) and most users can simply hide their behavior behind the use of BitTorrent proxy services.

That hasn't stopped CCI from frequently trumpeting six strikes as a smashing success, often using unreliable, contradictory evidence (when it can be bothered to show evidence at all) to support their argument that forcing ISPs into the role of content nannies is a great idea. Privately however, newly leaked MPAA documents suggest the entertainment industry isn't so sure six strikes is doing much of anything.

The leaked documents show the program isn't having quite the impact the MPAA would like, though again, unsurprisingly, the MPAA believes that's only because the program isn't big enough yet. While there's the occasional attempt to suggest that offenders change their ways after receiving notices, the document then proceeds to note the MPAA actually has no idea if people change their behavior, since it's possible they switched ISPs or are hiding their behavior via BitTorrent proxy services:

"The U.S. system is “not yet at scale” or operating with “enough education support” according to the MPAA. As a result the CAS has not made an “impact on the overall [piracy] landscape...“No current information as to the behavior of users who appear to stop P2P infringement – do not know whether [they are] migrating to other pirate systems or to lawful services,” the statement reads."

The MPAA's solution to this problem? Make Six Strikes bigger, bolder and thereby worse:

"Attainability as to existing programs boils down to whether ISPs will agree (a) to expand scale to levels that might impact overall P2P piracy, and (b) to enhance remedial measures so as to improve efficacy,” the MPAA writes."

I've spoken to execs at two large ISPs who have admitted privately they know most pirates have simply started using proxy services, but the ISPs are playing along begrudgingly. Already a bit put off by the added paperwork, few are going to be keen on an a voluntary expansion of the program. As such, look for the entertainment industry to lobby heavily to have this year's rewrite of the Communications Act include numerous new treasures aimed at ISP compliance of a plan expansion. Perhaps after that we can proceed to banning the use of VPNs and proxies entirely for the good of the nation?

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, piracy, six strikes
Companies: cci, mpaa