MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet

from the collateral-damage dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the MPAA's announced plans to sue Megaupload in a civil lawsuit to pile on to the criminal charges the company is already facing. As we noted, there's no legitimate reason for such a lawsuit, given the criminal lawsuit already underway, other than as a way to try to get a favorable court ruling it can use against others. Having now read the full complaint against Megaupload, it's quite clear that this is exactly what the MPAA is doing. The lawsuit is incredibly dangerous for the internet, even if you think that Megaupload itself was a bad actor. Even the LA Times -- Hollywood's hometown paper -- has called out the lawsuit for how it may have negative consequences felt broadly across the internet.

That's because the lawsuit makes a whole bunch of claims about Megaupload that are perfectly reasonable activities for tons of user-generated content and/or cloud computing companies. But, because Hollywood has spent years demonizing Kim Dotcom as a movie-style villain a la "Dr. Evil", it seems to be hoping that the courts won't notice that it's basically making up what they want copyright law to be, rather than what it is.

First, it describes the fact that when you upload a file to Megaupload, the service would then give you a link that you could share. The MPAA paints this as if it's some nefarious scheme to encourage infringement. But it's actually how pretty much any cloud or user-generated content site works.

When the upload was completed, Megaupload reproduced the file on at least one computer server it controlled and provided the user with a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") "link" beginning with "megaupload.com." The uploader could then propagate the link broadly over the Internet, so that anyone interested in downloading or otherwise accessing a copy of the file could easily find it on Megaupload's servers.

But, of course, Dropbox or YouTube do the same exact thing. Then, they call out the fact that Megaupload did not provide its own search engine, as if that's something nefarious:

To conceal the scope of infringennent occurring on the Megaupload website, defendants did not provide users with a searchable index of files available for download from the Megaupload website (although defendants themselves had access to such an index). Instead, defendants relied on numerous third party "linking" sites to host, organize, and promote URL links to Megaupload-hosted infringing content, including plaintiffs' copyrighted works.

Except, cloud storage companies from Dropbox to Box to Google Drive don't supply a searchable index of files available on their services either. And that's for a very good reason. Because they're not promoting their services as a place to go to search for infringing works. In fact, you just have to go back to the RIAA's lawsuit against Napster, to see where the exact opposite claim was made. In that case, the court found that Napster was, in part, liable because it had a search feature:

Napster is not an Internet service provider that acts as a mere conduit for the transfer of files.... Rather, it offers search and directory functions specifically designed to allow users to locate music, the majority of which is copyrighted.

Yet, now, the MPAA seems to be arguing that not having a search engine means you're trying to hide copyright infringement. Damned if you do, damned if you don't -- just how the RIAA and MPAA like it. If you have a search engine, you're enabling infringement, if you don't have a search engine, you're "concealing" infringement.

The MPAA also tries to paint other perfectly reasonable business model choices as nefarious. Offering premium paid-for services for faster downloads, or access to larger files, is painted as some evil plan to profit off of infringement. But it also makes perfect business sense for a company like Megaupload seeking to cover its bandwidth bills. Similarly, the famed "financial incentives for premium users" is treated as if this is actually paying people to post infringing works. But that makes little sense. It's actually an incentive to get people to post good content. It's the same reason that YouTube today pays top YouTubers who bring in lots of visitors. Is the MPAA really arguing that such an incentive program is illegal?

To ensure a vast and ever-growing supply of popular copyrighted content to which they could sell premium access, defendants paid users to upload popular content to Megaupload's servers. Defendants' Uploader Rewards program promised premium subscribers cash and other financial incentives if they uploaded popular works, primarily copyrighted works, to Megaupload's servers. The rewards program also encouraged users to publicly promote links to that content, so that the content would be widely downloaded.

Except, nothing in this program appeared to be about encouraging people to post infringing works. In fact, it would seem like a pretty stupid program for encouraging infringement, as Megaupload would likely be able to bring in a lot more attention and revenue for authorized legitimate content. Such a program, in actuality, appears to be the perfect way for artists to go direct to their fans, offering them ways to get the content for free, while still earning money. In fact, that's why artists like Busta Rhymes spoke out in favor of Megaupload after it was shut down. He pointed out that he could make a lot more money releasing his own music directly via Megaupload, than in going the old record label system.

Furthermore, since this lawsuit is from the movie studios, they list out a number of specific movies that they claim were on the site. However, Megaupload says that the uploader rewards program only applied to files smaller than 100MB, meaning it likely didn't apply to any films that were uploaded. Assuming that's accurate, the studios are going to have quite a difficult time proving that the rewards program induced infringement of movies.

On top of that, even if the program was used by some to make money from sharing infringing works, the program itself is clearly content neutral, and not about encouraging sharing of infringing works. For the MPAA to allege otherwise threatens all kinds of incentive programs on pretty much any user-generated content site.

Next, the MPAA complains that when they sent takedowns to Megaupload, it only removed the specific URL they sent, and not all copies of the content. But, uh, that's all that the law requires. As the court in the YouTube/Viacom case ruled, under the DMCA, the service provider needs to be made aware of specific locations where infringing content is. They can't just be given a single URL and told to "block all copies of that." Nor would such a request be reasonable either, as infringement depends on context, not content. In the YouTube/Viacom case, Viacom initially sued over files that its own employees had uploaded, meaning they were licensed -- yet it argued those were infringing. You run into the same problem here in that the MPAA is arguing that if you know that a particular file is infringing, all similar content must be removed. But the law does not say that. Though, clearly, the MPAA is seeking to change the interpretation of the law.

Next, the MPAA argues that because Megaupload could have used filtering tools to prevent new uploads of works previously claimed as infringing, and did not do so, that proves it's liable. However, that's completely bogus. Many, many, many copyright cases have all said over and over again that nothing in the DMCA creates a duty for service to proactively filter new uploads. In fact, the industry itself admits that this is true, because they're currently asking Congress to change the law to make this a new legal requirement. Yet, in the Megaupload complaint, they pretend it is already the law:

Megaupload could also have implemented various readily available and effective technological solutions (including, without limitation, automated filtering using digital fingerprinting-based content-identification technology) to identify and prevent infringement of copyrighted content. Megaupload chose not to do so.

But there is no legal reason why it had to do so. In fact, considering that others have spent tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on such systems, there are perfectly good business reasons not to have spent such money. Here, the MPAA is using this lawsuit to try to get a court to suggest there's a legal duty to filter. This would have a huge negative impact on startups who couldn't afford the tens of millions of dollars entry fee.

You can argue that Megaupload was widely used for infringement. You can even argue that Megaupload management were awful people who didn't care that much about copyright. But if you read this lawsuit objectively, you have to admit that it is a straight up attack on the basic principles of cloud computing and user-generated content, while seeking to change settled law and reinterpret the DMCA in a way the MPAA fantasizes it should be, rather than the way the law is today. That's incredible dangerous.

It's no surprise that they're doing this against Megaupload, a company based halfway around the globe, with all its assets seized, and which is fighting a massive criminal complaint at the same time. That will, obviously, lead to limited resources to fight this civil suit, making it easier for the MPAA to sneak through dangerous changes to the law, via potential court rulings. These are changes that it's been unable to get written into the law for the past few years, so now it's using the courts to try to do its dirty work.

No matter what you think of Megaupload, this is a very dangerous lawsuit.

Filed Under: cloud computing, copyright, movies, user generated content
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

Lawmaker Responds To Studio's 'More Tax Breaks Or We Walk' Letter With Eminent Domain Seizure Amendment

from the I-guess-it's-back-to-Hollywood,-where-people-treat-each-other-right dept

Here's the sort of thing that results when bad behavior is greeted with worse behavior.

The bad behavior is production companies seeking tax breaks. Politicians love to grant these tax breaks because a) they like having celebrities around and b) they've bought into the perception that somehow shooting a movie or TV series in town is a net fiscal gain for the community. Generally speaking, the first is almost always true and the latter is seldom ever true. A 2010 Tax Foundation study found that most cities granting tax breaks make back less than $0.20 per dollar "invested."

Media Rights Capital, the company behind Netflix hit "House of Cards," has already collected $26.6 million from the state of Maryland. But it isn't enough.

It began late last month when Charlie Goldstein, the senior vice president of Media Rights Capital, sent a letter to Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, threatening to leave the state if the show was not provided with millions of dollars more in tax credits for which it believes it should qualify.

In the letter, Goldstein wrote that the company would "break down [their] stage, sets and offices and set up in another state."

This is standard operating procedure for studios -- playing cities and states off each other in hopes of obtaining perpetually escalating tax breaks in exchange for a steadily diminishing ROI on taxpayer funds. Totally the sort of thing the state should have expected when it started handing out free money.

The response, however, was even worse. Rather than calling the studio's bluff and helping it pack its bags, a legislator chose to do this:

Delegate Bill Frick introduced an amendment to a budget bill that would allow Maryland to seize the production company's property under eminent domain in the event it leaves the state.

Of all the wrong things legislators have ever done, eminent domain is one of the very worst. Bill Frick has an excuse, however.

Frick said the move was inspired by the style of politics depicted on "House of Cards" and by the show's ruthless protagonist, Frank Underwood, who is played by Kevin Spacey. He told Business Insider, he thought, "How would Frank Underwood respond?" Frick said his eminent domain plan was the "most dramatic" thing he could think of to counter MRC's threat.

In what will surely be recorded in the legislative history books as a "Frick move," a legislator has managed to outdo the studio in terms of sheer, manipulative nastiness. Yes, Frick would do Frank Underwood proud, but is that what we really want from our legislators?


Frick's amendment doesn't specifically name the studio but its cutoff line of $10 million or more in tax breaks leaves "House of Cards" stranded on an island made of taxpayer funds. It also puts the legislator in the rare position of openly espousing Marx's calls for the State to seize the means of production from the Elite, something that plays better in hazy dorm rooms than in a system where corporations have been determined to be "people."

While Frick's amendment passed a voice vote in the House of Delegates, the state Senate approved its own legislation -- which increases the tax credits available to companies -- with a 45-1 vote. Either way this pans out, the taxpayers will lose -- whether they're footing the bill for more tax breaks that won't create long-term wealth, or watching their representatives carve a legislative toehold for the future seizure of certain businesses.

Filed Under: bill frick, eminent domain, house of cards, maryland, movies, studios, tax breaks, tv
Companies: media rights capital, netflix

Piracy Continues Killing The Movie Business To New Record Highs

from the yet-again dept

So, earlier this week, the MPAA came out with its annual report that shows that once again, its box office take hit new record highs. This same thing happens basically every year, so we almost didn't cover it at all this year. It's kind of old news. But people keep submitting it, and so we'll oblige, but mainly for the chance to repeat BoingBoing's awesome title on its story over this: Motion picture industry continues to stagger under piracy with mere record-breaking income. You can read the MPAA's full PDF right here, though for reasons that make no sense at all, they will block you from reading the PDF if you have javascript or cookies disabled. For a PDF? Really guys? There is no reason at all that anyone ever needs cookies or javascript to read a PDF file.

The report further notes that ticket prices have continued to rise pretty consistently over the past decade from a $6.21 average price in 2004 to $8.13 last year. For an industry supposedly being destroyed, you'd think they wouldn't be able to get away with raising prices... but, apparently (as we've been pointing out for nearly two decades) going to the movies is a different experience than downloading a film and people are paying for that experience.

And, yes, just to cut off the line of criticism: this only applies to theatrical revenue, and not home viewership. But that's somewhat a red herring, given that, if left to the movie industry, there basically would be no home video market to speak of at all.

Filed Under: box office, movies, records, tickets
Companies: mpaa

MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie

from the insane dept

We wrote earlier about the guy who told the story of being pulled out of a theater in the middle of a movie for wearing Google Glass (turned off), which he wears all the time, because he got prescription lenses installed on the device and uses it as his regular pair of glasses. As we noted, there were some oddities in the original story, including references to the FBI and "The Movie Association," neither of which made sense. Since then, as we noted in our updated post, AMC confirmed that a customer had been detained, and since then the MPAA as well as Homeland Security have weighed in, confirming the basic story. This is insane on multiple levels, which we'll get to in a moment. But first, the quotes. Here's AMC:

Movie theft is something we take very seriously, and our theater managers contact the Motion Picture Association of America anytime it’s suspected that someone may be illegally recording content on screen. While we’re huge fans of technology and innovation, wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theatre. At AMC Easton 30 last weekend, a guest was questioned for possible movie theft after he was identified wearing a recording device during a film. The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft. The investigation determined the guest was not recording content.

Then the MPAA:

Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft. The MPAA works closely with theaters all over the country to curb camcording and theater-originated piracy, and in this particular case, no such activity was discovered.

Finally, Homeland Security's ICE division:

On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in Columbus. The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been inactive. No further action was taken.

Okay, now onto the point. As we said in the initial post, this certainly fit with the MPAA's insane "guidelines" to theaters and their "zero tolerance" policies towards anyone possibly recording anything. However, the involvement of ICE is particularly insane. We've been particularly critical of ICE and the group's over-aggressive campaign to seize websites based entirely on Hollywood's say so.

Even so, it seemed incredible that ICE would take direction from the MPAA on something as small as a guy in a movie theater, rushing to the theater to help with the interrogation of someone there, but we underestimated the willingness of ICE to say "how high" when the MPAA says "jump." Yes, we should know better by now, but we thought we'd actually give the MPAA and DHS the benefit of the doubt here. Our mistake.

We find it difficult to believe that there aren't more important things for ICE to be doing than hassling a guy out attending a movie with his wife. Hollywood has gotten ICE into trouble in the past with its over-aggressive claims about websites. You'd think that ICE would have learned by now that the RIAA and MPAA are not exactly trustworthy when they insist someone is a "filthy pirate" who needs to be investigated. There is simply no reason for federal investigators to be involved at all, let alone called in to interrogate some guy wearing a new piece of technology that the MPAA has overreacted to.

Filed Under: dhs, google glass, ice, movies
Companies: amc, mpaa

DailyDirt: Categorizing Everything

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

People just keep creating stuff -- books, movies, music, you name it... so it's (more than) a full-time job to keep up with all the cool new stuff. How do we classify music into hip-hop, heavy metal or Krautrock? What can we learn from mapping all these seemingly separate media genres? People and machines are working together to cobble together categorization systems that try to keep up with the flood of new content. Here are just a few examples.

• Netflix hired a bunch of people to try to categorize every movie, and it has 76,897 separate sub-genres for films like "romantic comedies" and "Violent Action Thrillers Starring Bruce Willis". You'd probably never guess which actor crosses into the most movie sub-genres (it's not Kevin Bacon).... It's Raymond Burr. [url]
• A brief history of music genre origins tells us that categories of music are often named after popular bands or lyrics. For example, bluegrass music is named after "the Blue Grass Boys"... and guess what lyrics inspired "Doo-wop" music? [url]
• Melvil Dewey came up with the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system in 1873. The DDC system is now published by OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. which owns all the copyright rights and manages the licensing of this method of organizing general knowledge. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: archives, books, categorization, ddc, dewey decimal, films, genres, libraries, movies, music, oclc, recommendation systems, sky is rising
Companies: netflix

Hollywood Needs The Internet More Than The Internet Needs Hollywood... So Why Is The W3C Pretending Otherwise?

from the get-on-with-it dept

Last week, we wrote about the MPAA joining the W3C almost certainly as part of its ongoing effort to push for DRM to be built into HTML5. Cory Doctorow has a beautifully titled blog post about all of this, saying that "we are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell." It's a great way to think about it, and Cory's quite pessimistic about the outcome:

Try as I might, I can’t shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to ensure that all interfaces built in HTML5 (which will be pretty much everything) will be opaque to users, and it will be illegal to report on security flaws in them (because reporting a security flaw in DRM exposes you to risk of prosecution for making a circumvention device), so they will be riddled with holes that creeps, RATters, spooks, authoritarians and crooks will be able to use to take over your computer and fuck you in every possible way.

While I am quite frequently in agreement with Cory, I'm at least marginally more optimistic than he is about the eventual result here. Putting DRM into HTML is monumentally stupid, and he's right that it will create massive security and legal liabilities for almost everyone. But the history of DRM has shown, over and over again, that it gets broken to bits in minutes once released, and even if there is legal liability involved in such things, it always happens. It will happen again here, and there will be "patches" made pretty quickly. It will be a tremendous waste of resources on pretty much everyone's part, but I'm not convinced that it will be effective in making things that much more unsafe.

That said, the larger point that Cory raises reminds me of the key point that I'm still at a loss to understand here. Why the W3C and others who support this proposal seem to be so willing to kowtow to Hollywood on this. Yes, as Cory explains, it's really Netflix driving the bus here, but it's the Hollywood studios that are out there telling Netflix they need DRM:

And it’s basically all being driven by Netflix. Everyone in the browser world is convinced that not supporting Netflix will lead to total marginalization, and Netflix demands that computers be designed to keep secrets from, and disobey, their owners (so that you can’t save streams to disk in the clear).

But here's the thing: the internet wasn't built to be the next broadcast medium for big Hollywood blockbusters. It was built as a computing and communications platform. That's what made it special and it's why so many people have flocked to it. It's why it's "the internet." Hollywood came late to the party and has been trying to redesign the web in its own image ever since -- and that means locking it down so it's more about a broadcasting model, in which the "professionals" in Hollywood get to determine what you, the peons, get to do.

But there's a reason Hollywood so desperately wants to control the internet: because all the people are here. And that's an important point. Hollywood (and, by extension, Netflix) need the internet much more than the internet needs Hollywood. Sure, the Hollywood folks like to claim that the reason the internet is so popular is because of professional content, but there's little to no evidence to support that. Yes, people like to have access to that content, but it's never been the driving force for why people want to be online.

And we've seen this game before. The record labels demanded DRM from online music stores for years... until they realized that this was a complete waste of time and money for no benefit. And they finally agreed to what the public wanted: no DRM. There's no reason for the W3C to make this same mistake. The studios and Netflix can resist all they want. They can stick with their proprietary Silverlight players no matter how annoying and technologically backwards they might be. But, in the end, they'll come around to better, more open technologies like HTML5 because that's where the people are and that's what the people want.

So, the W3C has a serious choice to make here, and it's been betting on the wrong horse. Sure, Netflix will resist HTML5 for a while. Because that's what it feels it needs to do. But it won't last. Because it can't. History has shown over and over again that companies will eventually follow the will of the public and it will happen again here. There's no reason to go through a stupid, shortsighted and wasteful process of DRMing everything, only to see it cracked and broken within hours of being launched. Just drop the DRM, focus on building a system that better provides what the public wants... and Hollywood and Netflix will get there eventually as well.

Filed Under: drm, hollywood, html 5, internet, movies
Companies: mpaa, netflix, w3c

Oh Look, Hollywood Had Yet Another Record Year At The Box Office

from the but-piracy-is-killing-the-industry dept

It seems that we report something like this each and every year, but once again, it looks like Hollywood has set a record at the box office, even as it continues to whine pitifully about how "piracy" is destroying its business.

The trick apparently -- and I know, this is crazy -- is to Make Good Movies. Shocking, I know.

"Going down the list of studios, they all had great movies that kept people coming back to the theaters all year long," said Nikki Rocco, president of distribution at Universal

What a concept.

Of course, some will argue that the box office is only a part of the industry's revenue -- and that's absolutely true. Of course, to argue about declines in home video revenue is pretty disingenuous since the industry fought incredibly hard to block that revenue stream from ever existing. Besides, as with the box office, we're seeing that when studios (gasp!) produce good content and make it easy and convenient to watch at home for a reasonable price and without painful restrictions, audiences seem to jump on board.

It's almost as if... the problem has never been "piracy" but the fact that the studios have spent years resisting providing consumers with good alternatives...

Filed Under: box office, hollywood, movies

You Don't Own What You 'Bought': Disney And Amazon Play The Role Of The Grinch In Taking Back Purchased Film

from the ownership...-wazzat? dept

We've discussed many times before how, in the digital age, you no longer really seem to own what you've "bought." Instead, you're getting a temporary license, and at times that means that the copyright holder and partners can remove it. In a story making the rounds this week, it appears that Amazon pulled the film Prep and Landing 2 just in time for Christmas! The issue came up when Bill Jackson settled down to watch the video -- which he "bought" last year -- with his two kids, aged two and eight. It didn't work and he contacted Amazon to find out what was up. Despite the fact that when he paid the $3, he was told it was to allow him to "watch and re-watch as often as you like" Amazon told him that Disney had asked them to pull it, and they did so:

Amazon has explained to me that Disney can pull their content at any time and 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.' In other words, Amazon sold me a Christmas special my kids can't watch during the run up to Christmas. It'll be available in July though!"

Amazon did give him a $25 credit as an apology, and then when the story started making news, Amazon changed its story claiming it was something else:

Amazon blamed the removal on "a temporary issue with some of our catalog data" which it says has been fixed, adding that "customers should never lose access to their Amazon Instant Video purchases."

"Should" never lose access is quite different from "will" never lose access. Just the fact that Amazon has the power to take back what you've bought should be a pretty big concern for those who think that they're actually buying what they've been told. As some have noted, Amazon's terms of service appear to give it the right to do exactly what the original version described:

Availability of Purchased Digital Content. Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming.

While it is true that buyers can download copies and this only impacted the streaming versions, it still seems rather troubling that people who thought they were buying something found out that they weren't. This is one of the many reasons why people are so concerned about these kinds of offerings. They know that you're no longer really "buying" anything, but getting a (very) limited license.

Filed Under: buying, copyright, licensing, movies, prep and landing 2, streaming
Companies: amazon, disney

When Will Hollywood Stop Blaming Everyone Else And Help Itself?

from the stop-blaming-others dept

Just last month, we talked about two studies released by Hollywood. The first was one from the MPAA itself, which (as happens all too often) focused heavily on blaming Google for its supposed problems in monetizing the online world. It used some highly questionable methodology to suggest that people doing searches ended up downloading unauthorized flicks. This was released in coordination with a Congressional hearing on copyright, in which the message pushed by the MPAA's sister organization, the RIAA, was "what we really need is for Google to help us return to our former glory." Oddly, that same day, NBC Universal released the second version of its own "piracy" study, which aimed to show how "big" the problem was. However, as we noted with both this and the original version of that study, when you look at the data, it shows pretty clearly that the "problem" is one that Hollywood has made for itself. That is, when good, convenient and reasonably priced offerings hit the market, an awful lot of video watching moved to those authorized offerings. It's when those offerings were missing entirely that the amount of unauthorized access seemed to shoot up.

Inspired, in part, by the thinking about these studies and claims, Jerry Brito from the Mercatus Center teamed up with Eli Dourado and Matt Sherman to launch a new site called piracydata.org, which attempts to collect (and visualize and -- most importantly -- make available) data that shows whether or not the most "pirated" works each week are available for legal access. It's still at a small sample size so far, but the initial results don't speak well to Hollywood's claims that it's adapted to the digital era. The MPAA's attempt to talk its way out of the hole it's dug itself is kind of funny. Basically it's a "hey, squirrel!" response.

The Walking Dead was pirated 500,000 times within 16 hours despite the fact that it is available to stream for free for the next 27 days on AMC's website and distributed in 125 countries around the world the day after it aired. Our industry is working hard to bring content to audiences when they want it, where they want it, but content theft is a complex problem that requires comprehensive, voluntary solutions from all stakeholders involved.

Now, if you're not the MPAA and so tied up and confused by unauthorized access, you might look at that information and realize that putting it on AMC's website was probably the mistake. That's not where people look for stuff these days. Yes, they made it free, but they didn't make it convenient, meaning they didn't put it in a form that some portion of consumers want, and watching it directly on AMC's website appears to take a large group out of their natural flow. That's something that Hollywood could learn from, but it never does. It just points the blame finger.

However, the data continues to be fairly overwhelming that the "piracy problem" is a problem of Hollywood's own making. It could solve it if it wanted to, by focusing on making more content more widely available in more convenient ways and prices. Yet, instead, it wants to blame everyone else and order them around to "fix" a problem of it's own making.

Filed Under: authorized access, availability, convenience, copyright, hollywood, infringement, movies, piracy

New Zealand Censors Horror Film, Making It Extra Popular With Downloaders

from the well,-duh dept

This should go without saying at this point, but as government continually try to censor stuff, the internet just kind of mocks them. New Zealand censors have apparently decided that the horror flick Maniac -- a Cannes Film Festival selection that is starring Elijah Wood -- is just too damn scary for New Zealand sensibilities, and banned it. However, as TorrentFreak notes, banning the film seems to have only resulted in it getting downloaded a ridiculous amount in New Zealand. Of course, if New Zealand censors hadn't been so squeamish and actually allowed the movie to play in the country, the filmmakers would actually be making money. Instead, they get none of it. Of course, you also have to wonder how much extra publicity New Zealand censors gave to this movie by declaring that it was too scary for Kiwis to watch.

Filed Under: attention, censorship, downloading, horror films, maniac, movies, publicity