Why Does The Entertainment Industry Seek To Kill Any Innovation That's Helping It Adapt?

from the it's-all-about-control dept

The LA Times recently had a good article about Hulu's struggles with its corporate parents, the various TV companies. While Hulu itself has been massively successful, the TV companies are suddenly claiming it's a threat (even though they own it) and are seeking to cripple the service in a misguided and shortsighted bid to "protect" their legacy offerings.

Combine that with our recent story about the record labels crippling Spotify and the Hollywood studios seeking to cripple Netflix, and you've got a pattern. Any time a new service comes along that helps drag the content industries into the present, the industry's hit back by trying to kill off or cripple the golden goose.

The simplistic answer is that the entertainment industry is all about control, and they freak out about these success stories (that make them money) because they realize they're losing control. I think it's a little more complex than that, but not too much. The established entertainment business, for many, many years, has operated under the principle of being the gatekeeper to their industry. They've (incorrectly) believed that their value and the key to their business is in being the gatekeeper. But the amazing thing about the internet is that it knocks down fences and walls with ease.

Gatekeepers don't make much sense.

If you view yourself as an enabler, then these new services seem great and wonderful and a huge opportunity. If you see yourself as a gatekeeper, you see these other services as a path to route around your gate. The mistake is in thinking that the answer is to shut down or limit that alternative. That's because, the alternatives (generally) are not really gatekeepers themselves. Of course, to the existing gatekeepers they look like gatekeepers, which leads to this reaction. But the reality is quite different. In a world where there are no real walls or fences, you don't need gates, and thus you don't need gatekeepers.

Instead, you need enablers: the curators, aggregators and filters who help you make sense of the wide open world. That's what Spotify, Hulu and Netflix all do, in a legal fashion. But it's also what various unauthorized sites and services do in an often less than legal fashion. But none of that changes the fact that the gates are no longer needed and the fences are down. Spotify, Hulu and Netflix aren't the new gatekeepers. They're compelling enablers who have built the new hotspot that people want to go to, because of the additional value they provide. Knocking them down doesn't bring back the need for the gates. Those are gone forever. It just takes away one of the more useful services -- which actually does pay the copyright holders -- and drives people to the many other (perhaps unauthorized) sources.

Filed Under: control, entertainment industry, gatekeepers, innovation, movies, music
Companies: hulu, netflix, spotify

Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?

from the so-odd dept

A few weeks back, we noted how strange it was that ASCAP boss Paul Williams directly refused to debate Larry Lessig, after Williams falsely described Creative Commons and other groups as being anti-copyright, and referred to attempts to discuss this as an attempt to "silence" him. Over in Europe there's a similar situation, as the head of the Austrian film and music industry trade association has dropped out of a planned panel discussion after learning that former spokesperson of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde, would be on the panel as well.

"On Friday, I was informed of the requested list of panelists and only then I learned that Peter Sunde, a convicted co-founder of the BitTorrent download portal The Pirate Bay, will participate in this discussion. For this reason, I would like to hereby withdraw my participation."

Not much of a "debate" is it, when you refuse to sit at the same table as those who disagree with you. None of this makes much sense to me. If these folks have the evidence to support their position, why not take part in these debates and support their position in a way that wins over those watching? Intentionally avoiding such discussions seems like a blatant admission that they know their arguments don't stand up to much scrutiny.

Filed Under: copyright, debates, entertainment industry, peter sunde

The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home

from the how-do-these-people-keep-their-jobs? dept

This one is a bit surprising. Following the recent nutty statements from Prince, Kara Swisher has decided to take the contrarian position to explain why Prince might not be so crazy after all. Her reasoning is that she's spent several days down in LA talking to entertainment industry execs (her first mistake), and they seem to agree with Prince that the internet is a darned problem. Of course, to some extent, that's like asking the leading buggy whip makers their feelings on automobiles. Just because they haven't figured out a way to thrive doesn't mean that the automobile revolution is "over."

After spending several days here in Los Angeles this week, talking to execs, talent and others who toil in the entertainment industry--I can't say what I am hearing is that much different in terms of the continuing frustration with the lack of decent business models to replace the ones that have worked for so long and been so lucrative for the entertainment and media industry.

This is how disruptive business models work. The disrupted whine and complain about how the disruptors haven't shown them how to continue making the same monopoly rents they made in the past. But that, of course, ignores the nature of disruption. Disruption doesn't work by having someone come along and show the legacy players how to exactly replicate their old profits. It's the exact opposite of that. Disruption is when others figure out how to break down the barriers to do something more efficiently, and undercut the old business model. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong for the underlying benefit that people get.

More entertainment content -- movies, music, books -- are being made today than ever before. Anyone bitching and complaining about how the internet is "destroying" the industry isn't paying attention. What they should be focused on are all of the massive new opportunities created by this sudden glut of content, combined with massively more efficient (and often free) methods for content creation, distribution and promotion.

From music to movies to television, the biggest minds here still sound perplexed as to what will finally be the golden ticket to carry them through to the inevitable next era of digital distribution.

That single sentence basically describes the problem. These guys are sitting back and waiting for someone to hand them a golden ticket that replicates the old ways of doing things. That's not how it works. No one gave the buggy whip makers a golden ticket that let them keep their old lines of business going.

But the lack of a golden ticket most certainly does not mean there are no business models. Those who are embracing new business models are finding plenty of opportunity to do amazingly well (in fact, better than they did before). But, for the most part, it involves hard work and multiple streams of revenue. It's not the old "sit back and let the cash roll in" model that the industry is used to. But, some of us think that's a good thing.

"Why is the consumer always right?" said one exec to me this week in a typical statement. "You can't have a business if there is no business model."

It's a good thing the exec who said that did so anonymously, because otherwise his or her board of directors should be calling for him to be fired. The consumer is always right in a competitive marketplace because if you don't serve them, your competitors will. That there are still entertainment industry execs who don't get this is scary. And, saying there are "no business models" is so wrong that it again seems troubling that this exec still has a job in the industry. We spend a lot of time pointing to all sorts of working business models every day. They may not be the "golden ticket" that this exec wants where he gets to sit back and relax and see the cash flow in, but they can actually bring in a lot more money by leveraging a more efficient system, connecting better with fans, and giving them a real (scarce) reason to buy, rather than trying to bully them into paying through artificial scarcities.

From there, Swisher reverts back to Prince's statements:

If you remove the sillier parts of his quote that preceded it, such a statement is not unreasonable from an artist who wants to be paid for his creative efforts.

Thus, instead of mocking that sentiment, perhaps it is time for tech leaders to figure out a way to keep talent from being dragged into the future without so much kicking and screaming.

The role of the disruptor is not to make life easy for the disrupted. Swisher and these execs seem to be confusing the role of certain folks in the legacy industry with the overall entertainment industry itself. As noted, the entertainment industry is thriving. More movies, music and books are being created. More money is being spent. It's just that it's going to different players. There's no reason to "figure out a way to keep talent from being dragged into the future." The opportunities and wide open path are there. The problem isn't that tech leaders haven't made it easy for them. They have. It's that these guys are so myopically focused on the way they used to make money they don't realize that the new opportunities are already there and have been embraced widely by others.

Filed Under: business models, disruption, entertainment industry, prince

Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?

from the not-very... dept

TorrentFreak alerts us to the news that May 31st was the four year anniversary of the raid that took down The Pirate Bay. So it seems worth checking in to see how well that went. As you may recall, right after the raid happened (very much because of MPAA pressure), the MPAA put out a statement, insisting that this raid was a huge victory for the MPAA:

"The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbors for Internet copyright thieves," said Dan Glickman, Chairman & CEO of the MPAA. "Intellectual property theft is a problem for film industries all over the world and we are glad that the local government in Sweden has helped stop The Pirate Bay from continuing to enable rampant copyright theft on the Internet."

Of course, Glickman was overstating things just a bit. The raid did not stop The Pirate Bay from continuing anything. In fact, the raid merely took the site down for a couple days, but the publicity from the raid massively increased visitors to the site. I have to admit that, at the time of the raid, I'd never heard of The Pirate Bay myself. Since then, of course, there have been multiple attempts to take the site down, all of which have failed. The latest of which resulted in the Swedish Pirate Party taking on hosting duties for the site.

And, of course, there's the infamous lawsuit. While it did result in guilty verdicts against four people associated with the site, it hasn't stopped the site from operating at all, and recent attempts to collect money from the defendants in the lawsuit have mostly turned up nothing. While it's a bit disturbing that the entertainment industry was able to hand the fines over to debt collectors while the case is still on appeal, those debt collectors have only been able to seize $30,000 of the over $6 million owed -- and all of it's from Carl Lundstrom, who was only loosely associated with the site in the first place.

It really does make you wonder why the MPAA and the RIAA have bothered with all of this. It hasn't even remotely slowed file sharing down. In fact, their actions have helped advertise The Pirate Bay worldwide and made those running it into celebrities. And, even if they eventually do shut down the site, a dozen others will quickly step up to take its place. At some point, you have to wonder when they will realize it's time to figure out ways to focus on building a better business model rather than trying to do the impossible and deny what technology allows.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, file sharing, pirate bay
Companies: mpaa, the pirate bay

Canadian Entertainment Industry Begins New Media Campaign For Draconian Copyright Laws

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

Every year, the entertainment industry pushes Canada to update its copyright laws -- which are already quite strict -- with some misguided propaganda about how Canada is a "piracy haven." Of course, the facts don't support that assertion, but the entertainment industry keeps insisting that it's the case, and that the only way to deal with this is through ever more draconian copyright laws to, as the entertainment top industry lawyers have falsely claimed, "bring Canada into the 21st century." After public protests and outcries prevented a few previous attempts at bad copyright law updates (basically written by the entertainment industry) from being put in place, last year, the government held various public consultations and asked for feedback. The written feedback was strongly against more draconian copyright law, but it looks like the industry has started up a questionable moral panic campaign as it gets ready to try again to push copyright law in the wrong direction.

It kicks off with an article in Canadian Business magazine (sent in by a bunch of you) which is so ridiculously one-sided as to be laughable. That article kicks off with a record label owner complaining that sales are down. You think? Maybe that's because you're selling obsolete plastic discs, rather than updating your business model. The label owner goes on to point out that others -- such as studio engineers are losing their jobs as well, and this is tragic. Sure, it's tragic, but when markets change, jobs change too. We used to be a nation of farmers, and now a tiny percentage of the population farms. The telephone company used to employ thousands of operators to connect your call, but technology did away with that particular function. Markets change, jobs change. It's no fun for those involved, but it's no reason to pass laws that you think will protect those jobs (even though they won't).

The article goes on to trot out the typical ridiculous stats and bogus claims from the industry, and the only attempt it has at anyone presenting the other side of the debate are some quotes from Michael Geist, who is introduced as "a media gadfly whose left-leaning views on the issue are openly disparaged by many in Canada's corporate sector." Uh, wow. Clearly, whoever wrote the article had no interest in hearing the other side of the story -- such as the evidence that the issue here is not copyright at all, but business model choices. The views on copyrights are not anti-business, as the article presents, but pro-consumer, which when done right is also pro-business. It's clearly a media hit job in anticipation of the next round of copyright debates.

Along those lines, a few folks have submitted a writeup by Canadian intellectual property lawyer Richard Owens, who claims that the public consultation on copyright in Canada last year was not fair because it was dominated by evil pirates and "shadowy organizations." Seriously. The article dismisses the public consultation because sites like TorrentFreak (which he mischaracterizes, ignoring that the site is a well-respected journalistic endeavor) encouraged people to make their views known, and that many of the submissions came via a submission system put together by the Canadian Coalition of Electronic Rights -- which he also mischaracterizes as "a clandestine group of mod-chip manufacturers."

However, as Michael Geist notes in his response to Owens, lots of special interest groups had form letter offerings available -- including the entertainment industry. But no one chose to use them. While form letters may not be the fairest system in general, the fact that there were form letter submission services for pretty much all points of view, it seems reasonable to assume that anyone on any side of this debate could have used one, and thus, the results are, perhaps, somewhat representative. Owens claims that many of the submissions were likely made by foreigners, but as CCER notes in its own response, it required a legitimate Canadian address, and it's unlikely that many faked such a thing. Even if a few did, it's unlikely that most of those submissions were from foreigners. Owens goes on to complain that many who submitted their views were "poorly informed," but reading through the details, it appears "poorly informed" just means "did not agree with Owens."

Amusingly, Owens also appears to cherry pick certain industry representatives to suggest that only they should have been able to comment on the issue:

We sampled twenty-five percent of the substantive individual Submissions, and of the professional authors, musicians, filmmakers, performers, photographers and designers, more than 90% were in favour of robust copyright protection as a means to secure their livelihood and protect their artistic integrity.

Uh, yes. If you ask those who have a law protecting them from competition, of course many of them will say that law is great and they want it strengthened. But that's got nothing to do with the purpose of copyright law. Copyright law is supposed to be about promoting overall progress (and, yes, I know that's the US version, but the general concept is true in Canada as well), and that means for both the public and for the content creators. To claim that only the content creators' views should be considered when discussing copyright is incredibly disingenuous.

In the end, it's clear that Canadians are gearing up for yet another fight over copyright law, and the early media campaign is beginning. It starts with bogus stories with little basis in fact, combined with weak attacks on the public who oppose such draconian laws. Hopefully, Canadian politicians will see through such charades quickly.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, entertainment industry

How Third Party Liability Can Stifle An Industry

from the things-we-don't-want dept

The entertainment industry has been pushing really hard for greater secondary liability for third parties, lately -- hoping to roll back some of the vastly important safe harbors found in both the DMCA and Section 230 of the CDA. Both of those safe harbors (though, they work in different ways) are designed to make sure that liability is properly applied towards the party that actually broke the law. Secondary liability is a dangerous concept that applies the liability to a third party because it's difficult to find the actual perpetrator. But, in what world does it make sense for you to blame an innocent bystander just because it's hard to find the actual person responsible?

The consequences of secondary liability (both intended and unintended) are incredibly dangerous for both free speech and for the ability to create new and useful services online. We've already seen how the Chinese have taken secondary liability to a new level by using it as the core mechanism for censorship. But still the entertainment industry pushes forward.

They should be careful what they wish for. An article in the Times Online highlights the situation in Ireland, where there aren't safe harbors against secondary liability for defamation -- and it's leading internet companies to blatantly censor or to avoid doing business in Ireland out of fear for the liability. Now, some in the entertainment industry seem to think this is just fine -- because they think that the internet should be a broadcast medium for the big "professional" producers of content, and all these internet companies and user-generated content things should really all fade away.

But for people who recognize that freedom of communication online is important, and who recognize that third parties who create services should not be blamed for their misuse by users, this should be quite troubling. Trying to increase secondary liability on service providers through things like ACTA is an attempt to strip away basic legal common sense in the proper application of liability, in an effort to crowd out new online services, in favor of old school broadcast entertainment firms.

Filed Under: cda, dmca, entertainment industry, liability, safe harbors

Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out

from the gotta-keep-that-on-the-down-low dept

Well, this is just lovely. I added it as an update to the original post about Biden's highly questionable, one-sided "piracy summit," but it's an issue that deserves an additional post. Reporter Ryan Reilly was attending the summit, and was Twittering what was going on, so we got to hear Biden say that piracy is "flat unadulterated theft" (apparently the Vice President of the US is unfamiliar with US law and the difference between infringement and theft, which is... um... scary). Then we heard that Attorney General Eric Holder was reinvigorating the Justice Department's "task force" on copyright. Why? There's still no indication of any actual harm (both the movie and music industries are growing). Then, Commerce Secretary Locke noted that anti-camcording efforts are an important part of the anti-piracy effort. Funny timing, given the recent fiasco over a young woman arrested for incidental capturing of snippets of New Moon.

So it started out just great. And then? Well, then the press got kicked out. Seriously. Isn't this the Obama administration that's supposed to be all about openness and transparency and not giving in to industry lobbyists? So it gathers up a bunch of the highest ranking government officials, (and doesn't invite any consumer advocates or tech industry representatives) puts those politicians in a room with industry bosses and lobbyists, claims that "all stakeholders" are present (seriously, that's what Biden's press release said), has those government officials make a few blatantly false or misleading claims, and then kicks out the press. Yikes. Update: Reilly has now published his article on the event, which includes a list of attendees.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, joseph biden, openness, piracy, summit, transparency

Biden Convenes 'Piracy Summit' That Appears To Be Entirely One-Sided

from the of-course dept

Vice President Joe Biden has long been known to be a supporter of Hollywood when it comes to making copyright laws more draconian (and, not surprisingly, Hollywood has been a strong monetary supporter of Biden campaigns). He doesn't even try to hide that he's willing to do Hollywood's bidding on copyright law. And, I don't believe I've ever heard Biden ever publicly recognize concepts like fair use or the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, it looks like the Obama White House has given Biden control over IP issues, which is why a bunch of former "anti-piracy" lawyers -- including a former Biden staffer -- are now in the Justice Department. So, I guess it should come as no surprise that Biden is convening a "piracy summit" at the White House (via Michael Geist) and the guest list appears to be entirely one-sided:

Among those expected are Sony's Michael Lynton, Warner Bros.' Barry Meyer, Viacom's Philippe Dauman, NBC Universal's Jeffrey Zucker, Warner Music Group's Edgar Bronfman, Harper Collins CEO Brian Murray, Universal Music Group's Zachary Horowitz, the MPAA's Dan Glickman, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol, IATSE's international president Matthew Leob, AFTRA'S Kim Roberts Hedgepeth, DGA president Taylor Hackford, DGA exec director Jay Roth and SAG's David White.

Notice that there aren't any consumer rights representatives. No one from technology companies. No one representing a viewpoint from outside of these industries of how they might be abusing claims of "piracy" to prop up obsolete business models. Instead, it's just the echo chamber. The same folks who have been misleading politicians for ages. And, of course, whenever you get a summit like this, expect some sort of misguided "action" to follow. Update: Public Knowledge has put out a statement, noting how one-sided this gathering is, and questioning why politicians are attending what appears to be an industry gathering on how to prop up a business model. Update 2: In the press release (pdf) about this, Biden's office has the gall to claim this "will bring together all of the stakeholders." Ha! It's 100% entertainment industry interests. No tech. No consumer advocates. No ISPs. This is a complete joke. Update 3: This just gets more and more ridiculous. Reporter Ryan Reilly was covering the "summit," posting the seating chart and quoting Biden as saying that "piracy" is "flat unadulterated theft" but it looks like Reilly has now been kicked out of the summit. Openness and transparency apparently doesn't apply when it involves propping up one small industry's obsolete business model.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, joseph biden, piracy, summit

Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete

from the oh-really? dept

A few months ago, we responded to an ill-informed opinion piece in the UK's Independent by Stephen Garrett, who runs a TV production house. In his essay, Garrett trotted out all the old falsehoods about how file sharing is the same as theft and that ISPs absolutely need to stop file sharing or the entertainment industry will die. On top of that, he relied on the tired old argument that file sharing "costs jobs" and those jobs are "needed" in these economic times. That's ridiculously laughable, of course. Inefficient industries and inefficient jobs (such as those supported by gov't monopolies) are exactly what's not needed these days. However, it appears that Garrett has not gotten the message (or, would simply beg for a gov't handout, rather than adjust his business model to match with the economic times).

Steven Hoy points out that the Financial Times is the latest UK paper to give Garrett space to put forth his opinions on the subject, and so we get yet another misguided rant about how the gov't and ISPs need to protect his own inability to craft a better business model.

Piracy (think Johnny Depp) and file-sharing sound harmless enough. But as it involves the widespread appropriation of intellectual property without payment, file-sharing is better described as file-nicking. It is theft. Hundreds of millions of pounds are haemorrhaging out of the film and TV industries, just in the UK. Jobs are being lost and companies will fold. This is not in contention.

Actually, it is very much in contention. It's almost pointless to reiterate this point, but if you can't understand the difference between someone making a copy and someone taking away a good, it's difficult to see how you should be given responsibility over running a business. It may be infringing, but it is not "theft." There is no "loss." Nothing is "missing." The only problem is a business model issue -- that is that you, Stephen Garrett, failed to give people a good enough reason to buy something. That's your fault, and your fault alone.

If any jobs are being lost, it's because you failed to manage your business properly, recognize the new market that technology has created, and learn to embrace it in a profitable manner. Others are doing so. You whine and ask the gov't for a handout.

In this parallel universe, consumer rights have acquired the status of a fascistic mantra. What the consumer wants, the consumer gets, even if he does not want to pay for it. Everyone has, to some extent, colluded in this fantasy, blocking out the advertisements while consuming -- for "free" -- newspapers, films, television shows and music on legitimate websites. Now, and this has happened very quickly, consumers assume they have a right to these things. Free, and forever. Unfortunately this fantasy is unsustainable.

Why is it unsustainable? It is, in fact, no different than any marketplace where competition exists. Let's say, for example, that you're a pizza maker, and it costs you $5 to make a pie, which you then sell for $10. Not a bad business. Now, a competitor comes along, and figures out how to make pizza pies for $3, and start selling his (which are just as good as yours) for $5. Now, you're in trouble. What do you do? Normally, you figure out how to compete, or you go out of business. You don't go crying to the gov't about how you're going to lose jobs if the gov't doesn't stop others from making the cheaper pizza. You come up with a better pizza or a more efficient way of making the pizza and you compete and get people to buy your pizza.

Economically speaking, this is the identical situation, because all that matters to a business is the margin. The fact that new technology has made it possible for your content to have a marginal cost of $0 is the same thing as someone figuring out how to make a pizza and price it at your marginal cost. It's just competition, and the answer is that you learn to compete, not that you blame the more efficient system or anyone who enables it.

All of these cost money to produce; in the case of TV dramas such as Spooks that my company produces, a huge amount. At the point when these creative products enter cyberspace, they are only partly paid for. Producers are dependent on revenues from DVDs and international sales, which piracy hits.

Of course all of these things cost money to produce. No one has said otherwise. But that's why you put in place a better business model that offers something unique that they can't get elsewhere for free. You use those unique scarcities to make a profit and recoup your fixed costs. That's just business. No gov't protectionism needed.

Piracy happens on the internet. The greater the bandwidth, the easier piracy is. We in the creative industries have asked (nicely) that the internet service providers should help tackle piracy by responding in a graduated way to customers of theirs identified as offering or downloading pirated material. The sequence would be along the lines of a warning letter, a "squeezing" of bandwidth, a further cut in bandwidth and then the ultimate sanction: a limitation of service.

I read that logic to be the same as "automobiles happen on roads, the nicer the roads, the more automobiles we have. We in the horse carriage industries have asked (nicely) that the road builders should help tackle automobile dangers by responding in a graduated way to drivers identified as speeding at rates beyond what a horse carriage can run. The sequence would be along the lines of a warning letter, a fine for speeding, a further ban from driving on roads, and then the ultimate sanction: a limitation on driving altogether."

Stopping progress because you're unable to adapt is no excuse.

Having the right to use the internet to access entertainment brings with it the responsibility not to act in a way that endangers every future film, TV show and music track. In particular, the UK government needs to use Tuesday's Digital Britain report to compel ISPs to work with us on a graduated system of penalties for file-sharers. Doing nothing bolsters the notion that nothing has value. The logical outcome is that, within our lifetimes, there will be nothing of value left.

No, Mr. Garrett. What you are asking for is for the internet to change to adapt to the way you liked to run your business. But that's not how the world works. Your unwillingness (or, perhaps, inability) to change is your problem, not the internet's. The internet was designed as a communications medium. You are trying to force it into being a broadcast medium, because that's the only business model you know, and you're unwilling (or unable) to learn how to create a business model on a communications platform. The only ones who should be "sanctioned" or face penalties is you, for your own inability to compete.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, protectionism, stephen garrett, uk

Maybe The Pirate Bay Should Just Pay Hollywood For All The Advertising It's Done

from the this-isn't-going-to-end-well... dept

While The Pirate Bay ruling is now quite tainted, and about to go through at least an appeal if not a full retrial, it seems that the entertainment industry has wasted no time at all using the ruling to threaten a bunch of other sites, telling them that the're next if they don't shut down. In fact, some already are shutting down, as they'd rather not deal with a similar lawsuit.

Obviously, the entertainment industry still thinks it won this case. But, as we noted when the ruling came out, it's actually quite a loss for the industry, because it makes them think the legal response is working. Their reaction to the result highlights that. But look a bit closer at the details and you realize just how badly the industry is shooting itself in the foot (repeatedly). Lots of people have pointed to the fact that the Pirate Party in Sweden has rapidly grown in membership, making it one of the larger political parties in the country, and its political ambitions are growing.

But... even more interesting, as pointed out by Michael Scott is the news that The Pirate Bay itself has seen its own traffic and popularity grow noticeably thanks to the trial. Once again, the entertainment industry's strategy has only driven more people to find out about the site and what it does. What's amazing is that the entertainment industry should already know this. After all, what kicked this whole trial off was a big raid which briefly shut down The Pirate Bay, but which also put the site into the worldwide media, and massively increased awareness of the site... a trend that only grew as the press coverage continued.

By far, the biggest promoter of The Pirate Bay has been the entertainment industry itself. If the Pirate Bay guys owe the entertainment industry any money at all, it should be for all the promoting the entertainment industry has done for the site.

Meanwhile, as Hollywood stupidly celebrates all this as a victory, others are noting that the next generation of file sharing systems coming down the road will be nearly impossible for the entertainment industry to stop. The entertainment industry doesn't even realize what battle it's fighting, which is why it still thinks this trial has been a victory.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, publicity
Companies: the pirate bay