BBC Presents MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy, Claims It's 'Fully Balanced'

from the on-one-side-of-the-scale... dept

You may recall back in 2007, that the BBC put on a program all about the "dangers" of WiFi that was entirely one-sided and had shoddy reporting, bad science and (best of all) conflicts of interest, as one of the main participants sells products to protect people from so-called radiation. The program was widely criticized, and many months later, the BBC finally admitted it made some mistakes with the program -- but the only one it would admit was that it was unfair in how it presented the one dissenter who pointed out that there's little to no evidence that WiFi causes any harm.

It looks like the BBC has done the same thing yet again. TorrentFreak notes that it just did a segment on all of the harm done by "piracy" to the movie industry, including quoting the already discredited report, paid for by the movie studios, claiming that movie piracy funds terrorism. Beyond that, the BBC program speaks to four different people -- all of whom agree that movie piracy is a hugely dangerous problem that could (they claim) end the movie industry in the UK. Do they present any evidence? Other than the discredited Rand study, not a bit.

So when someone complained to the BBC about the piece, you would think that maybe they'd realize that the piece had been a bit one-sided, but instead, they responded:

This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it's coverage of copyright theft.

You see, apparently there is no other side to the story, and you can take the word of the industry insiders, because they're the only ones who can or should comment on the issue.

Amusingly, TorrentFreak also points out that the previous segment on that same broadcast, was about pirate radio, where the participants are described as "lovable." Yet, suddenly, when it switches to movies, they become "no laughing matter." Why? Did it ever occur to the folks at the BBC that perhaps the issues are actually the same -- and the people involved in both types of "piracy" are effectively doing the same thing? Apparently not.

Filed Under: fairness, movies, mpaa, piracy, propaganda, uk

Demigod, Piracy And Good Business Models...

from the let's-walk-this-through... dept

Lots of folks have been submitting variations on the story about how Stardock's new game, Demigod, has been widely pirated, and that's resulted in server troubles for the company, as many of these unauthorized users try to connect to Stardock servers. Many are claiming that this shows that Stardock's customer friendly approach to video games fails. But, that's not true or accurate at all. It's just an issue of properly lining up the incentives and the infinite goods vs. the scarcities. In this case, one of the key scarcities was server access -- but Stardock set things up such that unauthorized copies could drag that down. The good thing, though, is that the company quickly got on top of the problem and has been implementing a technological fix rather than screaming and complaining about pirates. Meanwhile, some others have sent in links to the Demigod forums, where people recognize that many of the unauthorized users got the game to test it out, and are encouraging people to buy it to support Stardock and its fan-friendly attitude.

In the end, though, it does seem like Stardock has set this up a bit as a "give it away and pray" setup, which we tend not to agree with as a good business model. Since a big part of the game is the mutliplayer aspect, where you have to connect to a server and play against other players, why not give away the software itself (many people are getting it this way already) and charge a nominal fee for access to the server. That access is a scarcity -- and then you can scale based on users, since more users means more money. It seems like that's a reasonable business model that aligns everything much more nicely.

Filed Under: business models, demigod, piracy, video games
Companies: stardock

Andrew Lloyd Weber Trashes The Internet As 'Somalia Of Theft And Piracy'

from the stick-to-the-music dept

Nathan was the first of a few folks to send in the news of Andrew Lloyd Weber's quotes complaining about how the internet is the "Somalia of unregulated theft and piracy." Funny. I thought Somalia was the "Somalia of unregulated theft and piracy." Lloyd Weber seems to make the same basic false economic assumption that many other folks have made: believing that the only way to make money is through the direct sale of recorded music. So he bemoans the fact that sales are down, and immediately blames piracy and (of course) ISPs for enabling it. He doesn't take into account things like how internet connectivity has actually made the market more efficient (which should lower prices) and the overall competition for entertainment dollars has increased greatly (while the music industry has done little to give people more reasons to buy). But, most importantly, he seems totally unaware of the fact that there are other business models beyond just selling recorded music. His claim that the music industry in the UK will be dead in 10 years is silly. Does he think that no one will pay him to write music for plays anymore? Oh... whoops, right there is a perfect example of a different way to pay for the creation of music.

Filed Under: andrew lloyd weber, piracy

Is The Idea Of Embracing 'Piracy' Finally Going Mainstream?

from the about-frickin'-time dept

For many years, a small group of people has been trying to explain to the world of folks who freak out about "piracy" that there really are tons of opportunities in not trying to prevent it, but simply flipping it around, and using it to your own advantage as a part of your business model. The steps to doing so really aren't that difficult, but since many people have a natural aversion to "piracy," it's sometimes difficult for people to see beyond the big fat "free" to the huge opportunity right behind it.

Might that finally be changing?

MIT's Technology Review has an article about how a variety of companies are finally starting to push the idea that content providers should embrace piracy, and put together business models that take advantage of what piracy really can be: a free input into a larger business model, that provides free promotion and free distribution, while enabling a number of new (previously impossible) business models. Nothing in the article will be all that new to folks who've been around here for a while -- but it's somewhat encouraging to see the concept getting slightly more widespread acceptance.

Filed Under: embracing, piracy

Hollywood's Favorite Lawmakers Preparing Next Level Of Draconian Copyright Laws

from the because-ProIP-wasn't-enough dept

Because (of course) last year's ProIP bill that (once again) strengthened copyright laws wasn't enough, Hollywood's favorite lawmakers all got together outside of LA and complained about how copyright laws needed to be even more draconian. They once again quoted the same mythical stats about the damage done by infringement, and didn't hear from a single defender of the public or someone who could explain the basic fact that strengthening copyright law doesn't solve anything. Instead, they just complained, blamed pretty much every foreign country (other than France) and insisted "something must be done!"

Apparently changing their business models to adapt to a changing marketplace has yet to be considered. Not when all of these Congressional Reps from California have no problem swallowing made up stats and misleading fear mongering from an industry unwilling to embrace new business models. Instead, they blame everyone else, including apparently a major session blaming Canada. It's still not clear why Hollywood thinks Canada is such a copyright pariah. The country already has pretty strong copyright laws and doesn't seem to be a haven for piracy at all.

The only country they did seem to like? Apparently that would be France, which just sneakily (after most of Parliament had gone home for the night) passed a three strikes bill. The entertainment industry execs seemed to think this might be a perfect solution -- once again looking to kill off any opportunity to create a better business model, and instead piss off fans and drive them further underground. It's like seeing the same dumb horror movie over and over again, where we the consumers/audience keeps yelling out "no, don't go in there!" and yet they still go in there, make the same mistakes over again and end up only damaging themselves. Is it really that difficult for them to recognize that the business model is the issue, and no amount of increased copyright protection is going to change that?

In the meantime, it's pretty sickening that our elected officials would choose only to hear from one extremely biased side on the debate, and will now introduce legislation that bails out that one industry at the expense of the public. Clearly, these hearings were not to "hear" anything new -- but to put on a puppet show prior to already written (by the industry) legislation to be introduced.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, foreign countries, howard berman, legislation, piracy, three strikes

In An Alternate Universe, How 20th Century Fox Could Have Responded To Wolverine Leak

from the just-calm-down... dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the story of how an early version of the movie Wolverine has leaked online, well before the movie goes to theaters. The NY Times even describes this as unprecedented and eats up the movie industry's claim that this is some huge problem. Not surprisingly, the NY Times article was written by the same reporter who recently wrote an article basically repeating unproven movie studio claims that piracy was damaging its business -- a point disproved weeks later in the same NY Times (by a different reporter) noting that the movie business is seeing a huge surge in attendance.

As has been pointed out over and over again, there's very little evidence that movie "piracy" cannibalizes film attendance. That's why the most "pirated" films are also the biggest box office hits. It's not too hard to figure out why: people go out to the movies for the social experience, not just for the content. And putting in place smarter business models can help drive more people to the actual theaters, even if they saw the content online first.

But, of course, that's not how the industry sees it, and 20th Century Fox has wasted no time in going after anyone sharing the film and trying to hunt down who leaked it. That is, of course, the company's right. But, it does seem that its resources might be better spent focusing on giving people a real reason to go see the film in the theaters.

If anything, it seems the real fear is that the version that's been released isn't very good -- and that's what will keep people away from seeing the film in the theater. That "early word of mouth" that studios have been blaming for bad box office turnout. And, certainly, you can understand why it would be upsetting to the studio to have an unfinished version out there (especially if it's missing many of the sound effects and special effects). But, even so, instead of going all legal and threatening, the studio could have responded in a way that built anticipation to get people to actually go see the movie.

Why not be straightforward about it, saying, something along the lines of:

Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away!

Sure, I just made that up on the spot -- but if Fox had released a statement like that, just think of the reaction among the folks who this unauthorized version would likely reach. Rather than being treated like criminals, they'd be treated like fans -- and with a bit of honesty. Personally, it would make me a lot more likely to want to go (pay and) see the movie when it came out. Would it really have been that difficult to do that? It certainly would be a lot cheaper and more effective than "spending the day demanding that copies of the film be removed from the largely anonymous swath of Web sites that swap movie files" as the NY Times reported folks at Fox Studios did.

Filed Under: movie leaks, piracy, response, wolverine
Companies: 20th century fox

Book Publishers Misguided Complaints About Scribd

from the sensationalism-at-work dept

If you're a bored journalist, it's easy to create a sensationalistic story about "piracy." Just find some pre-internet industry that's dealing with the shift to online content, get a few quotes about how awful "pirates" are, and then find a company to blame for all of it. That seems to be what the Times of London did with its story about publishers freaking out over people uploading books to Scribd. Scribd responded by pointing out numerous factual errors in the original article (specifically the parts that seem to try to place the blame on Scribd, despite it being a third party platform that actually has a pretty advanced anti-infringement system in place). However, this is the quote that struck me:

Peter Cox, a literary agent and editor of the Litopia blog, said: "These people are pirates. We don't have to give in to this. We can't afford to make the same mistakes the music industry did."

Apparently Mr. Cox hasn't been paying attention. The "music industry" (he means the recording industry) didn't give in on this. It fought it consistently. And lost pretty much every battle -- often making things worse for itself by simply never adjusting to the changing marketplace. So, Cox's response is to follow their exact mistakes by "fighting" this? That's exactly the mistake that the music industry made.

Instead, he might want to take a look at what folks like Paulo Coehlo discovered when he "pirated" his own books and saw sales jump. Or what Baen books has done. Or what tons of authors have found after they put their books online for free and combined it with a smart business model. Otherwise, Mr. Cox is making the exact mistake the recording industry made while thinking (incorrectly) that trying to "stop piracy" is somehow a workable solution.

Filed Under: books, piracy, publishers, publishing
Companies: scribd

So Only When Piracy Gets Really Bad Will Record Labels Change Their Act?

from the just-wondering dept

Google is today launching a free, ad-supported music service in China, with the backing of more than 140 record labels, including the Big 4. The service sounds like exactly the sort of thing that people have been calling for since the Napster days: a search engine linked to a trove of music files, supported by advertising. Google's wanted to add some sort of music search to its Chinese product for some time, as it's been at a significant disadvantage to rivals like Baidu, which have the feature to thank for much of their success. The record labels say this is the first attempt to monetize online music in China, and mirrors moves by some movie studios to compete with piracy there with new products and services, rather than through lawsuits and lobbying. These efforts always give a nod to the rampant piracy going on in China -- acting as if it's a completely different environment than the rest of the world. So is the lesson here that only if piracy, or at least the labels' and studios' perceptions of it, gets "bad enough", will they do something positive, rather than sue people or try to get laws strengthened in their favor? Or is it only because those aren't viable options in China that companies try something different there? The fact that the labels are moving forward with this plan in China, given its reputation as the wild west of copyright infringement, undermine their contention that they can solve the supposed piracy problem with legal or technological means elsewhere. Furthermore, it exposes the reality that what's staring them in the face is a tremendous opportunity, not a problem.

Filed Under: china, downloads, labels, music, piracy
Companies: google

Why Do Newspapers Keep Publishing Bogus Piracy Numbers From Lobbyists As Fact?

from the why-newspapers-are-dying dept

With all this whining about how the death of newspapers will somehow lead to the "end" of investigative reporting, it has to be asked why newspaper reporters never seem to tire of rewriting industry press releases full of bogus numbers as factual? If newspaper reporters are really so great at investigative reporting -- shouldn't they be questioning the bogus stats? We've seen this for years in reports on "piracy" stats, which are almost always calculated by industry lobbyists who have every incentive in the world to blow the numbers out of proportion. Looking at the details, it's not at all difficult for anyone to realize that the stats are completely bogus -- but, for some reason, these lobbyists can always find press willing to restate the numbers as fact, and that often leads to a nice virtuous circle, whereby industry lobbyists and politicians can then point to the news report to support their bogus piracy numbers.

The latest gullible reporter? Tony Wong of the Toronto Star, who has written an article that probably could have been written every year for the last decade about the awful threat of piracy to the satellite TV industry. What's amusing is that it really does look just like an article years ago, even quoting bogus 2001 "piracy" stats and then just saying "that number is likely far higher today." But the reporter does nothing to verify this at all. He then goes on to talk about how the satellite TV companies are "fighting back," with a "tough new encryption system." I remember reading nearly identical stories from a decade ago, about some great new encryption scheme that would wipe out satellite TV piracy. Yet here we are in 2009, rather than 1999, reading the exact same article. Isn't it the reporters' job to ask questions about both the bogus basis for the numbers and the fact that the industry has been trotting out the same "fighting back! stronger encryption!" story for over a decade? No wonder newspapers are collapsing.

Filed Under: lobbyists, numbers, piracy, stats

More Heavy Handed Actions By Microsoft Driving Companies To Open Source Software

from the piracy-is-the-least-of-their-problems dept

Some of the big proprietary software companies keep insisting that "piracy" is a big threat to their business (even if they quietly will admit that they actually benefit from piracy). After all, would a proprietary software company prefer that someone uses a competing product over using an unauthorized version of their software? In almost all cases, they'll prefer the unauthorized version, recognizing that it's much more likely to lead to future sales. So why do they keep taking actions that lead people to go to alternatives -- usually of the open source variety? The latest examples comes to us via Slashdot, which points out that in the spectacularly bankrupt country of Iceland, Microsoft has been pushing hard to get Microsoft resellers to pay up for licenses they sold to companies. The problem is that thousands of those underlying companies have gone bankrupt -- but Microsoft insists the resellers still need to pay. Their response has been to stop selling Microsoft products all together, and focus on open source alternatives instead. Perhaps it doesn't matter so much in a small, bankrupt country -- but these sorts of things have been happening elsewhere as well, and will quickly drive Microsoft customers right into the hands of competing products.

Filed Under: competition, iceland, piracy, software
Companies: microsoft