Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding

from the say-what-now? dept

Well, it's been a little over a week since Chris Dodd embraced the fact that he was a liar concerning his post-Senate career, and embraced this by misrepresenting the biggest issues facing the movie industry. In that week, he's apparently been reading from the MPAA "book of propaganda" and is getting better at it. In a speech to theater owners, he's tied together so many falsehoods that someone might actually believe some of them! I've embedded the whole speech below -- it's really a piece of work -- but let's dig into a few sections.

Let’s begin with perhaps the single biggest threat we face as an industry: movie theft. At the outset, I want you to know that I recognize and appreciate that NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording. Further, I want you to know that the member studios of the MPAA deeply appreciate the efforts you make every day to stop the hemorrhaging of movie theft in your theaters.

Let's begin with perhaps the single biggest lie: that copyright infringement is "theft." It's not. Stop saying it is. It makes you look like a dishonest fool, who is in no way capable of actually helping the movie industry adapt to the changing marketplace. As for the "camcording" threat, the MPAA still loves to talk this up, but still ignores the fact that the real issue is industry insiders leaking movies themselves...

Nearly 2.5 million people work in our film industry. The success of the movie and TV business doesn’t just benefit the names on theater marquees. It also affects all the names in the closing credits and so many more –middle class folks, working hard behind the scenes to provide for their families, saving for college and retirement. And since movies and TV shows are now being made in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, movie theft harms middle class families and small businesses all across the country.

Those who steal movies and TV shows, or who knowingly support those who do, don’t see the faces of the camera assistant, seamstresses, electricians, construction workers, drivers, and small business owners and their employees who are among the thousands essential to movie making. They don’t see the teenager working their first job taking tickets at the local theater, or the video rental store employees working hard to support their families.

Yeah, this has become a favorite trope of the industry lately. About all those poor key grips suffering from movie infringement. Of course, this is also a lie. File sharing has no direct impact on those people at all. They don't make any royalties on films. They were paid (not particularly well by the MPAA studios, mind you) for the job that they did, and move on to the next job. Where they suffer is when the MPAA and its member studios fail to embrace smarter business models, such that they have trouble financing new movies. But, as we've seen, the box office continues to do well, and indie filmmakers who are embracing new models are doing increasingly well. Perhaps the issue is that the MPAA should be helping filmmakers understand and embrace new models.

But I guess that's just outside of Dodd's realm of expertise.

We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of movie theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and on our ability to make the kinds of movies and TV shows people wish to see.

Fascinating that he claims this in the weeks after two separate, well respected research organizations both pointed to tons of evidence that stronger enforcement doesn't work. Nice work, Chris, you're parroting the failed policies of your predecessors, rather than showing any form of leadership.

After three decades in Congress, I have some idea how to attract the attention of a Congressman or Senator. When you return to your states, invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families. Tell them about the importance of these issues to you and to your communities. If you become that educator, you will leave a lasting and indelible impression on those who will make decisions about your future.

In other words, show them a good time, since the logic behind our positions makes no sense at all. However, if we entertain them for free, perhaps they'll feel indebted to give us protectionist, anti-competitive, anti-innovation policies that will help us wring a few extra dollars out of consumers, rather than innovating to add more value.

What I’m about to say isn’t quantifiable in economic terms. I can’t put a dollar figure on it for you. I can’t give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic – but as I stand before you this morning one week into this job, I want you to know that it is as important as all data you will have thrown at you during CinemaCon. Our lives are getting more and more complicated. We are increasingly connected to the world by the power of emerging technologies, but at the same time we seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other by the same technology and stream of information and distractions.

And yet, in the midst of all of this, if you drop by a movie theater in America or anywhere around the world on a Friday or Saturday night you will see neighborhoods coming together. You will see people turning off their phones and BlackBerrys. You will see families and friends settling in for two hours in a darkened theater. And even though everyone’s eyes are on the screen, it is somehow still a communal experience – unlike any other. The value of that shared experience crosses economic, political and even generational boundaries.

Going to the movies together as a community has stitched together the fabric of American society in a way that few other institutions ever have or could, providing a nation of incredible diversity with a common cultural vocabulary and a common understanding of ourselves. What’s at stake as we face these challenges is nothing short of the preservation and renewal of this quintessentially American communal tradition.

If I'm reading this correctly, he's basically debunking the entire first part of his speech. The thing is, that "shared experience" is the same thing we've been talking about on Techdirt for ages. It's why the movie industry shouldn't fear file sharing. It should be working towards improving and enhancing that shared experience, because that kind of shared experience can't be pirated.

I find it hilarious that Dodd appears to be suggesting that if the MPAA doesn't get stricter enforcement laws, people will suddenly stop wanting to come together as a community to share such experiences. Does anyone take this kind of thing seriously?

Filed Under: chris dodd, infringement, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa

Hollywood Continues Its Plan To Kill Netflix

from the jealousy-is-no-strategy-for-business-success dept

It's really kind of amusing (and frustrating) to watch the entertainment industry look to kill every golden goose that comes its way. Any time a new offering is successful, the entertainment industry gets greedy and either tries to demand a much larger cut, more control... or it tries to kill off the offering because it has "too much power." We saw it with the labels, when they turned on iTunes (though Apple's been able to hold that together pretty strongly) and music video games. It's part of what's been driving the record labels to give Spotify such a hard time in signing a deal to bring the (rather successful in Europe) service to the US. And it's not just the recording industry. We've noted that Hollywood has now decided that Netflix has been too successful for them, and it's time to put the company in its proper place.

Thus, we're starting to see Netflix partners push back and start to limit what Netflix can stream. First it was Showtime pulling back from streaming its content via Netflix, and now it's Starz that's pulling back in a big way. That's pretty significant, because it was the original deal between Netflix and Starz that really jumpstarted Netflix's ability in the streaming space. The big studios have been complaining about the Starz deal for years, and it's not hard to see their hands in the company's decision to scale back its relationship.

It really is amazing. Some new service comes along that drags these industries -- often kicking and screaming -- into the modern era, and then starts making them lots of money. And suddenly the industry turns on them (and fans and consumers) claiming that these services are simply too successful and need to be cut down to size. It's really a case of the entertainment companies overvaluing the content over the service. They think that all the value is in the content, and if the services are making money and getting users, it's because they're somehow "exploiting" the content in unfair ways. On top of that, I really think there's a psychological issue, where the entertainment industry bosses still think that if anyone else is making a lot of money, it's "unfair" -- even if they're making plenty of money themselves.

Of course, these moves will backfire. It'll just make people on Netflix watch less of these companies' content... or seek it out from alternative sources that Hollywood probably likes even less.

Filed Under: digital distribution, movies
Companies: netflix, showtime, starz

New Movie, Zenith, Distributed In Segments Via BitTorrent; Funding Needed To Release Next Segment

from the serial-distribution dept

Last week at SXSW Film, I moderated a panel looking at the role of P2P distribution for filmmakers. It really was a case study session, where we tried to look at different things that fillmmakers have done in embracing file sharing, including some things that worked, and some that didn't. You can listen to the whole panel on the SXSW website, including me with my nearly missing voice (SXSW will do that to you). The focus of the panel was really targeted at indie filmmakers who would likely have difficulties going a traditional route in getting their films out to the market. The panel consisted of me as moderator, Ray Privett, the founder of Cinema Purgatorio, Shahi Ghanem, the Chief Strategist from BitTorrent Inc., and Jamie King, the founder of VODO. Privett kicked us off with a preview of a film that he's helping release via BitTorrent and Vodo, called Zenith. You can see the preview below: A couple days after the panel, the first part of Zenith was officially released, via Vodo and BitTorrent. There were a few very interesting things about the way this is being done. The first is that releasing it via BitTorrent really fits with the nature of the film. That is, the film is a bit of a conspiracy theory about a product that has been lost... and then found. So distributing it via BitTorrent really fit with the nature of the content of the film. On top of that, the film is officially by "Anonymous," trying to build into that sort of internet mythology.

The second part that's interesting is that they're trying to release the film in segments, where the latter segments aren't released unless there have been enough donations for the first segments. It's not clear what will happen if enough donations aren't raised, but it's still an interesting strategy. Others have done this on a production basis, where they say that they need a certain amount to conclude production of later segments. In this case, the entire film is made, but they're trying to release it in sections. I really don't know if this kind of strategy works for films, but it's worth watching.

With Zenith, they are offering typical tiered offerings for people who donate different amounts, including the ability to meet with a character in the film. At lower levels, donors can get their names on the future releases as either a thank you or as an Executive Producer credit.

Anyway, Zenith is another case study worth watching. I have no idea if it will succeed with its current strategy, but in a world where most people tend to think that a film has to be released as a full and complete work, it'll be worth watching to see if it works as a "serialized" film instead.

Filed Under: distribution, jamie king, movies, p2p, ray privett, shahi ghanem, zenith
Companies: bittorrent, cinema purgatoria, vodo

Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing

from the it'll-make-this-all-much-easier dept

If you haven't yet, you really should read Greg Sandoval's excellent report from Hollywood on how the major studios are feeling about Netflix these days. The whole thing is quite enlightening, but can basically be summed up thusly:

The prevailing feeling among the studio managers I spoke with is that Netflix's streaming service will be a good outlet for the least-valuable material. If they have their way, Netflix will be the Internet equivalent of a swap meet, where only the most dated and least popular titles are available. The studios are betting that eventually people will get bored with the service.

Yeah. Good luck with that. But the statement I wanted to focus on was one that preceded that, and which explains why the movie studio execs think the above is even possible:

Netflix takes the scarcity out of the equation, one film industry insider said. People can watch any of the service's commercial-free films and shows anytime they want.

Notice that this is said as if this is a bad thing. And that, right there, is a one sentence summary of all of the industry's problems. It still looks upon scarcity as a good thing, and is seeking ways to bring back scarcity where there is none. This shows a rather confused understanding of economics -- one that doesn't recognize that abundance increases market size and opportunity, while scarcity decreases consumer value and market potential. Abundance is what leads to economic growth. It may require different strategies to capture pieces of that economic growth, but it inevitably leads to greater economic opportunity.

And part of the way that you capture that economic opportunity is to focus on adding value to consumers not taking it away. Yet what these studio execs appear to be doing is exactly the opposite. Consumers like Netflix's setup because it takes away scarcity. They see that as a good thing. They're actually paying for that. And the studios' reaction is that this has to go away? It's incredible. What kind of execs actually look at what consumers like and are willing to pay for... and decide "that has to be shoved aside"? If the studios are flopping it's because of thinking like this.

Filed Under: abundance, business models, movies, scarcity
Companies: netflix

Judge Censors Popular Mexican Documentary, Which Critiques Judiciary; Director Then Complains About 'Piracy'

from the funny-how-that-works dept

SinkDeep alerts us to the news that a very popular Mexican documentary, called Presumed Guilty (Presunto Culpable in Spanish) has been censored by the courts, after one person who appears in the movie complained that he never gave permission. The movie itself is a documentary shedding some light on the Mexican judiciary, following the case of the wrongful conviction of Antonio Zuniga for murder, based on flimsy evidence. The complaint came from one of the witnesses in court, who claims he never gave permission to the filmmakers. The filmmakers claim that since he appeared at a public trial there was no need to get permission -- and lots of people, including local and federal government officials are claiming that they disagree with the court's ruling.

Apparently, some are ignoring the order to stop showing the film, and the entire film has shown up on YouTube, where its racking up plenty of views. On top of that, the censorship order has made the movie popular among people selling bootlegs.

Of course, SinkDeep also notes that even with all of this helping the movie get a lot more attention, the producers are complaining about this "piracy." Apparently they've been complaining on Twitter that people shouldn't watch the unauthorized versions, even as they're fighting the courts who have censored the original version. On top of that, this morning, the director successfully issued a takedown to remove the film from YouTube. Of course, this seems like a perfect place where a filmmaker might encourage more people to see a movie, just as it's been censored. It's too bad the reaction is the same typical "but, but, piracy!" reaction.

Filed Under: censoship, mexico, movies, piracy

Amazing: A Long, Detailed Article On Hollywood's Struggles... That Never Mentions File Sharing

from the a-failure-to-take-risks dept

On the Media points us to an worthwhile article at GQ by Mark Harris that explores why all the major Hollywood studios are so afraid to invest in new quality films these days. Instead, it's all about sequels and derivative works -- anything that comes prebuilt with a "brand" because the marketing execs at the studios believe that with that brand, it's more likely to clear the hurdle to get enough people to pay to go see it:

Such an unrelenting focus on the sell rather than the goods may be why so many of the dispiritingly awful movies that studios throw at us look as if they were planned from the poster backward rather than from the good idea forward. Marketers revere the idea of brands, because a brand means that somebody, somewhere, once bought the thing they're now trying to sell. The Magic 8 Ball (tragically, yes, there is going to be a Magic 8 Ball movie) is a brand because it was a toy. Pirates of the Caribbean is a brand because it was a ride. Harry Potter is a brand because it was a series of books. Jonah Hex is a brand because it was a comic book. (Here lies one fallacy of putting marketers in charge of everything: Sometimes they forget to ask if it's a good brand.) Sequels are brands. Remakes are brands. For a good long stretch, movie stars were considered brands; this was the era in which magazines like Premiere attempted to quantify the waxing or waning clout of actors and actresses from year to year because, to the industry, having the right star seemed to be the ultimate hedge against failure.

But after three or four hundred cases in which that didn't prove out, Hollywood's obsession with star power has started to erode. In the last several years, a new rule of operation has taken over: The movie itself has to be the brand. And because a brand is, by definition, familiar, a brand is also, by definition, not original. The fear of nonbranded movies can occasionally approach the ridiculous, as it did in 2006 when Martin Scorsese's The Departed was widely viewed within the industry as a "surprise" hit, primarily because of its R rating and unfamiliar source material. It may not have been a brand, but, says its producer Graham King, "Risky? With the guy I think is the greatest living director and Nicholson, Matt Damon, Wahlberg, and Leo? If you're at a studio and you can't market that movie, then you shouldn't be in business."

Inception was not a brand, which is why nobody with a marketing background is too eager to go find the next Inception—although ironically, any studio in town would eagerly green-light Inception 2. On the other hand, as you read this, the person who gave the go-ahead to Fast Five, the (I hate to prejudge, but...) utterly unnecessary fifth installment in the Vin Diesel–Paul Walker epic The Fast and the Furious, is sleeping soundly right now, possibly even at his desk. On June 10, 2011, he will bestow on several thousand screens a product that people have already purchased four times before. How can it miss?

The article opens with a nice description of how no one in Hollywood thought Inception would succeed, and how they kept coming up with excuses as to why it would fail, or why it was an exception. They never seemed to consider the idea that people would actually be fine with supporting a good movie rather than a brand. Honestly, the first half of the article sounds almost identical to Kevin Smith's Sundance speech about what Hollywood is focused on these days. They don't take risks. They don't focus on quality. They focus on what's the closest to a formula they know will sell.

But what struck me as interesting about the article is that they don't mention file sharing at all. This is a really nice surprise. We keep hearing from the MPAA and others in the movie industry that the only reason some Hollywood studios are struggling (and, let's face it, "struggle" is a relative term, given the continuing records at the box office) is because of those darn kids on the internet with their file sharing ways. It's great to see that people are actually focusing in on the real causes of innovation stagnation in the industry, rather than picking an easy (but incorrect) target and lumping all of the blame in that direction.

One other interesting point is that the article notes that many of the folks who, in the past, might strive for a creative, high quality, Hollywood movie are, instead, now focused on getting a TV show on cable (HBO, Showtime, etc.). And, once again, this is a sign of how the world adapts. For all the complaints of how one area is struggling, it doesn't mean that good stories don't get told. They just adapt to the changing market. The only point that it seems the article could have paid more attention to is the state of true independent film these days (rather than the faux-independent stuff that's really from studios), and how there are all sorts of new creative ideas coming out of that market, as they no longer kowtow to the studio gatekeepers, but now realize there are alternative funding, distribution and promotion mechanisms out there.

Filed Under: brands, movies, risk, sequels, struggles

Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights

from the nice-'retirement' dept

As was expected, former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year. Just months ago, he announced that he would not, under any condition, take a lobbying job. And here it is, just a month or so after he left the Senate and he's confirmed that he's taken the top job at the MPAA, an organization, who just a week ago admitted its number one priority was lobbying the government. Of course, Dodd is also using a loophole to get around the laws that forbid Senators from jumping to lobbying jobs so quickly after leaving the Senate. On top of that, in announcing this, he also talked up the importance of increasing our already draconian copyright laws, with views that appear to contrast to what he said back when he was a Senator and claimed he supported internet freedom. I guess that million dollar plus per year salary eases the conscience.

Filed Under: chris dodd, consumers, copyright, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa

Hollywood Gone Mad: Complaining That Oscar Nominated Films Downloaded More

from the think-this-through,-people dept

With the Oscars going on last night, it seems that some people just can't keep things in perspective. For example, check out this bizarre article from Variety, saying that the wonderful attention bump from being nominated comes with a downside: that it also increases the frequency of unauthorized downloads:

Oscar nominees typically enjoy a box office bounce. But Hollywood increasingly has to reckon with another award-season ritual, one that could best be described as the piracy plunder.

The attention that an Oscar nomination for best picture bestows on a title also triggers a spike in illegal downloading.

But why is that a problem? The only reason those films received this additional attention was because of the Oscar nods, so complaining about the similar bump in unauthorized downloading seems bizarre. Seriously, if you are getting a bunch more people paying for the movie, are you really that concerned that another group is viewing it in an unauthorized manner? It's as if some people actually believe that every unauthorized download is a lost sale.

It's pretty simple: if you're getting downloaded more, it means there's more interest in your film, and it's your job as a film producer to figure out how to make money from that interest. It's not something to complain about.

The article also highlights, as we've discussed at great lengths, how the producer, Nicolas Chartier of Voltage Films, of last year's Oscar winner for best picture, Hurt Locker chose to sue 5,000 fans of his film for unauthorized downloading. Of course, it leaves out the part where he also called someone a "moron" and a "thief" for explaining to him, quite politely, why such a strategy might backfire. The reporter asks Chartier about the backlash, and he suggests that nobody knows who produces what films, so he doesn't care if he gets a bad reputation: "I don't think anyone is waking up saying, 'Let's boycott movies made by Voltage.'" Apparently Chartier doesn't use the internet much. There are, in fact, efforts by people to get everyone to boycott Voltage films because of his actions.

Filed Under: file sharing, movies, oscars

Swedish Government Helps Fund Documentary On The Pirate Bay

from the nice-of-them dept

Even as some in the Swedish government -- at the urging of US diplomats and the US entertainment industry -- continue to look for ways to shut down The Pirate Bay, it appears that the Swedish government is funding part of the documentary on The Pirate Bay. This is from the same movie that was able to raise some money last year via Kickstarter. To be honest, getting some government funds isn't that strange. The various Scandanavian countries tend to have pretty strong government support for the arts. When I was there about a year ago, many of the discussions I had with artists was how the situation there is quite different than in the US in that almost every filmmaker or musician expects to get some kind of government funding at some point or another. Still, given the controversial nature of The Pirate Bay within Sweden, it's still worth noting that the government was still willing to support the documentary.

Filed Under: documentary, funding, movies, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay