Once Again: The Sky Is Rising When It Comes To Creative Output

from the why-so-much-doom-and-gloom? dept

A few years ago, we released our Sky is Rising report, looking at the state of the global entertainment industry, in which we found that, contrary to the story of gloom and doom that was being spread by some special interests, the real story was quite exciting. What we found when we looked at the actual numbers was that we are in a true renaissance of creativity, with massively more content -- video, movies, books, music and video games -- being produced these days than ever before. Perhaps more importantly, we saw that the amount of money being spent on these things also continued to increase -- though it didn't always flow through the same channels as in the past. This combination of factors -- more content producers, many new channels -- often led some people to insist that the industry was collapsing, rather than the truth, that it was growing rapidly, just in more distributed ways. That represented certain challenges for many people in the creative industries -- but from a public policy standpoint, it certainly suggested that things were pretty good -- not deathly bad, as was often implied. Last year, we came out with a follow up report that focused on Europe -- noting a similar pattern in various European countries, though with some countries facing unique and interesting challenges. However, one interesting aspect of that report was that we saw a stronger pattern of success in those areas where innovation was allowed to thrive and flourish, rather than be held back.

Today we're launching the third report in this series, The Sky is Rising, 2014 Edition, focused on the United States in particular. And, once again, we see the same basic story. Lots of growth. Tons more content being produced. Lots of stories of new business models and artists connecting with their fans in new and unique ways. We're seeing new markets develop, along with new tools to help those markets. But the key story is the same as always: there is more content being produced today than ever before, and it's helped along by innovative technology, as the two often go hand in hand. More content than ever before is being produced, and content creators have more new and powerful ways to create, to distribute, to build a fan base, to connect and to build a business model -- and that's quite exciting.

At the same time, there's a push underway to reform our copyright laws -- something that we agree needs reform. And, yet, strangely, much of the rhetoric around reform has been based on the idea that the content world is suffering, or that there's some sort of "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" battle going on. The actual evidence suggests no such thing at all. Rather, it suggests that when innovation is allowed to flourish nearly everyone benefits. More content creators are able to do much more and create much more content. More fans are able to experience and consume much more content while supporting content creators in new and unique ways. From a public policy standpoint, it seems like things have been trending in the right way for a long time. If there's to be any sort of public policy change it should be to try to speed up that process, rather than to slow it down.

You can read the full report below. Once again, as with the previous editions of this report, we'd like to thank CCIA for sponsoring and publishing the paper.

Filed Under: books, copyright, copyright reform, culture, film, innovation, movies, music, sky is rising, tv, video, video games

When Will The Motion Picture Academy Take Responsibility For All That Piracy The Oscars Create?

from the questions dept

For the past few years, Hollywood and its friends have been very, very focused on trying to blame Google for their own failure to adapt to a changing business environment. This usually takes the form of ridiculous assertions about how Google can magically stop unauthorized access to copyrighted materials, combined with totally specious studies that try (and totally fail) to link Google to an increase in infringement. The RIAA and MPAA then insist that "something must be done" with that "something" usually being Google magically changing its search results and/or special laws that would make Google and other intermediaries somehow legally liable for such infringement. The key question that we see over and over again from the RIAA and MPAA is something along the lines of "when will Google 'take responsibility'?" for all that infringement.

However, with the not so surprising news that movies winning Oscar awards this past weekend saw a massive uptick in unauthorized access, a simple question needs to be asked: Why won't the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, the organization behind the Oscars, step up and take responsibility for its award show is clearly contributing to a massive uptick in infringement?

Perhaps it's not much of a surprise, but the day after the Oscar award ceremony the winning films are in high demand among pirates. The number of people sharing "12 Years A Slave" via BitTorrent tripled, and the number of "Gravity" downloads more than doubled.

With 7 Oscars Gravity was the big winner at the Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday evening. However, the Oscar for the best motion picture went to 12 years a Slave.

Obviously, I'm joking about my question above, but if the MPAAs of the world are going to run around blaming Google when the link to infringement there is tenuous at best, then shouldn't they be much more concerned with something like the Oscars, where the link between the event and infringement is so much more pronounced?

Of course, the proper response to both issues is that none of this matters if the movie studios put in place better business models that allowed them to capture revenue from the interest in those films, in a manner that viewers would most like, rather than leaving it open to alternative paths. But, apparently that's too difficult.

Filed Under: film, hollywood, motion picture academy, oscars, piracy

Ignorant NY Times Reporter Argues That The Public Domain Is Damaging Film

from the say-what-now? dept

In January, I wrote up an article that discusses the importance of the public domain -- something we've covered many times before. Without repeating various discussions we've had many times before, there is overwhelming evidence that a healthy public domain is important to both preserving old culture and developing new culture. But you wouldn't know that at all if you happened upon a recent, bizarre and totally misleading (to the point of being downright ignorant) article in the NY Times written by Nicolas Rapold, which is based on the entire premise that the public domain has somehow destroyed old films. Even the title makes no sense, claiming that "Even Good Films May Go to Purgatory," in which "purgatory" is the public domain. That's kind of hilariously wrong. In fact, it's much more reasonable to argue that it's copyright that creates a true purgatory for creative works.

Professor Paul Heald's ongoing research about the public domain has shown multiple times that excessive copyright is making creative works effectively vanish, while ancient public domain works are much more widely available. Take a look at the following chart, for example, highlighting how new books available on Amazon show a massive dip until you hit 1923 -- an important year, because works published before that year are mostly in the public domain: Seriously: which seems more like purgatory? All those works from the 1930s through the 1990s that are no longer available at all? Or the public domain?

But that's just the beginning of the problems in the article, which keeps going back to its basic premise that the public domain is bad, as if that's a simple fact. The entire crux of the article seems to be based on the fact that because some works are in the public domain, it means that lower quality video exists of those works. It bemoans various famous works that fell into the public domain, simply assuring all readers that this is a horrible fate that should never be allowed to happen to our culture.

The whole thing is based on the false belief -- which Rapold seems to accept without question -- that without copyright, there is no incentive for anyone to "restore" or keep a pristine copy of a work. This is the myth -- often pushed by copyright maximalists -- that public domain works are somehow "underused." Except that actual empirical research by Christopher Buccafusco and Paul Heald explored this assumption and found no support for that argument. In one experiment, they tested and compared audiobooks of public domain books vs. books still under copyright and found that -- as in other similar studies -- there is no evidence that public domain works lead to under use:

Lack of availability has been the most prominent concern expressed by Congress and commentators about works falling into the public domain. If works tended to disappear when their copyright terms expired, a plausible argument could be made for term extension because these lost works would be unavailable for future readers, users, and creators. Consistent with several previous studies,92 however, we found that audio books were significantly more likely to be made from older bestselling public domain works than from bestselling copyrighted works from the same era. Even excluding audiobooks available for free at www.librivox.org, the public domain works were more available to consumers in audio book form. For the full sample, public domain works were twice as likely to be available, and for the sample of enduringly popular works, public domain titles were 20% more likely to be available. These data suggest that copyright status, in fact, seems to reduce availability, even for the most popular books. Even today, there are no unabridged audio recordings for three of the most popular novels of the 1930’s, Magnificent Obsession by Lloyd Douglas, Mutiny on the Bounty by Nordoff and Hall, and Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather, and D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1930) did not appear as an unabridged audio book until 2011.

And while Rapold does highlight that certain old films that are in the public domain have degraded versions now available, he appears to simply assume the reason is that they've fallen into the public domain. He makes no effort whatsoever to prove the two are connected. Of course, it's actually not that difficult to discover works under copyright where the masters have similarly degraded and are disappearing in part because no one can have a copy to preserve it. Just a few years ago, we wrote about some important historical film archives that were literally being eaten away by fungus.

Part of the reason that many old works are degraded has little to do with its copyright status, and much more to do with the fact that the original copies were poorly cared for -- and, at the time, there was little way for others to make copies and preserve them. That, of course, is now changing, since so many people can help in the preservation process. A robust public domain, combined with inexpensive (or free) tools to allow anyone to preserve works, would easily lead to much higher quality preservation. Yes, there will be some poor quality copies out there, but just because some exist, it doesn't mean that good quality copies won't also be preserved.

Rapold's ignorance on the subject is especially problematic given that we're about to face a big debate in Congress on the issue of copyright term extension. As we've noted plenty of times, the big copyright legacy players have spent decades making sure no new works will ever enter the public domain by continually pushing out the supposedly "limited" copyright term. We're rapidly approaching the next deadline and there will be a massive lobbying campaign claiming that if works from 1923 are allowed into the public domain, all sorts of horrors will happen in response. Ridiculous and flat out wrong articles like Rapold's will be used to support that position, despite the fact that all of the empirical evidence suggests that argument is simply not true.

That the NY Times would publish such a piece highlights, yet again, how the famed newspaper so frequently appears to have little actual knowledge of the subjects it covers, often being a useful propaganda engine for certain special interests who can "place" a bogus story in a way that can have an impact on policies.

Filed Under: copyright, film, paul heald, public domain

DailyDirt: Dangerous Driving

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

America's car culture has influenced a wide range of our daily lives -- from creating suburban sprawl to making cars a status symbol that many aspire to own. However, gas-guzzling vehicles don't quite have the same appeal as they used to, and autonomous vehicles may eventually suck all the fun out of driving on public roads. Before robots take over personal transportation, here are just a few examples of drivers pushing the limits of safety and driving crazy on regular city streets.

• Alex Roy drove (dangerously!) across the US (approx 2,795 miles) in under 32 hours and 7 minutes, beating the Cannonball Run record set in 1983. The new record time to beat is 31 hours and 4 minutes -- which might be beatable if EV batteries get a lot better (and no re-fueling is necessary). [url]
• The short film (just 8 minutes and 38 seconds long) C'etait un rendez-vous was made in 1976, but not everything about that film was as it appeared. The audio wasn't from the car being driven (Mercedes-Benz vs Ferrari engine noises), so some people think the whole thing was faked. [url]
• The famous car chase scene from Bullitt on the streets of San Francisco took weeks to film. Steve McQueen did some of the stunt driving, but not any of the really dangerous parts. [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: bullitt, cannonball run, car chase, cars, driving, film, rendezvous, speeding, steve mcqueen

Is Using A Piece Of Existing Music In A Film To Underline An Emotion 'Rape' - Or Just The Way Cinema Works?

from the how-art-works dept

"The Artist" may have won several Golden Globes, but there's at least one person who apparently hates the film because of some music it uses:

The director of The Artist has defended using music from Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo in his Oscar-tipped film after a complaint from its [Vertigo's] star Kim Novak. In a full-page ad in Monday's edition of trade paper Variety, the actress said "rape" had been committed with the use of Bernard Herrmann's score.

Here's what the 78-year-old lead actress of Hitchcock's 1958 classic sees as the problem:

By featuring the music [of Bernard Herrmann], she went on, the makers of The Artist, were guilty of "using emotions it engenders as if it were their own".

But that's what thousands of films do when they use pre-existing themes or entire songs as a sonic background to key moments in their stories. Indeed, some films use dozens of songs in this way, as the length of the scrolling credits at the end attests. Does that mean Novak believes all these to be "rapes", too, and the film-makers "guilty" of using the emotions as if they were their own? Surely it's more a matter of building on the achievements of others - and acknowledging that fact, as was done in "The Artist" (although Novak called it "cheating")? In other words, this is just how art works.

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

Filed Under: emotion, film, infringement, music

Indian Film Industry Threatening To Strike Over Proposed Copyright Reform That Would Make Them Pay Composers For Music

from the it's-all-relative dept

It's sometimes amusing to see how organizations that are strong copyright defenders, because they rely on copyright for certain aspects of their business, respond when copyright law is strengthened in ways that help others. Suddenly, they seem to react differently, and all the talk about how important copyright is to "protect content creators" goes out the window. Earlier this year, we wrote about India's proposed copyright reform, which would strengthen certain rights for the content creators themselves, at the expense of many third parties. I actually think this is probably not a very good idea, and will do more harm than good, but it's still a bit amusing (via Jamie Love) to see that the Indian film industry is threatening to go on strike if a part of the law that would require it to actually pay composers and lyricists for the music they use goes through. All too often it seems like copyright is only important when it benefits the specific industry fighting for it. If it benefits anyone else, at that industry's expense, suddenly it's bad...

Filed Under: composers, copyright, film, india, royalties

Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve

from the but-would-that-be-'theft'? dept

Sneeje points us to a recent BBC article about how many old films are being literally eaten up by fungus, such that important elements of our history are being deleted via the "archival" process. Of course, if this content was digitized and allowed to be shared, this wouldn't be a problem, as there would be more and more copies available, rather than relying on a single point of failure made up of film with a gel coating that happens to be "ideal food for fungi like Aspergillus and Penicillium."

Filed Under: film, fungi

Failed Filmmakers Pretend Piracy Group 'Stole' Film To Try To Get Publicity

from the super-weak dept

We've talked about smart filmmakers learning to embrace file sharing to enlarge their audience and to improve their business model, but it appears that some filmmakers are getting the wrong kind of message. TorrentFreak has the story of how some filmmakers in Denmark, who had a total flop on their hands, pretended that the local Piratgruppen organization literally broke into the studio, stole (used correctly, for once) the film, and were threatening to put it online. Of course, the whole thing was completely made up in a weak attempt to get publicity. Little actually came of it until it was exposed as totally made up -- but it's a pretty serious issue. The studio was blatantly lying and accusing people of out-and-out criminal behavior, knowing that it was false. And this is in Denmark, where the local anti-piracy group has been quite aggressive in going after anyone for copyright infringement. Shameful.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, denmark, film, piracy, stealing

The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies

from the ditch-the-monopolies dept

I love middlemen. Yes I do! Most indie filmmakers I talk to complain about distributors and "middlemen," but they're missing the real problem. Middlemen -- publishers, distributors, resellers -- can do excellent work. The problem is not middlemen; it's monopolies.

So many middlemen insist on monopolies, we've forgotten we don't need to grant them. They say that without a monopoly (aka "exclusive rights") they have no incentive to promote and distribute. Actually a monopoly gives a middleman no incentive, because no one is competing with them. Take away the monopoly, and the middleman has to compete with other potential middlemen (including the artist). Then they have an incentive to work. Rather than monopoly, they succeed on the basis of expertise (theatrical distributors already know how to track, ship, and manage prints), innovation (finding better ways to meet customers' existing desires and identifying new ones), and quality.

I'm very happy with the middlemen I work with. FilmKaravan, who distributes Sita Sings the Blues on DVD, promoted and placed DVDs in outlets and markets I was too lazy to reach. (They out-competed me, which is great!) GKids, who distributes the film theatrically East of the Mississippi, manages the prints professionally, finds great new venues for it, and promotes it cleverly without overspending. These middlemen do their jobs very well, and I'm grateful for the services and value they add to the film. They have my non-exclusive Endorsement.

I'm only unhappy with one middleman, an overseas distributor who uses their monopoly to block access to the film rather than facilitate it. For example, a professional conference held by their country's national television company, and attended by important players in the film industry there, sought a one-time conference screening of Sita, but the distributor refused to lend the local print. Lending it would have helped the film tremendously, but the distributor was focused on immediate money instead of on the long-term good of the film. Because I had foolishly granted this distributor an "exclusive endorsement" in their territory, there was no one else in a position to lend a print. (What distributor would take up a film knowing that the filmmakers' imprimatur had already been granted to a competitor?)

My endorsement wasn't a mistake. I want that distributor to make money, and lots of it! But endorsing exclusively was a mistake: although not as bad as copyright, it's still a kind of monopoly, and monopolies invite abuse. That is their nature. I now know that to get good work from a middleman, I can't grant them a monopoly. They need to feel that if they let an opportunity slip by, another middleman may jump at it. Business competition improves business performance; some say it's an essential incentive.

Middlemen will only have monopolies if artists keep granting them. They're not going to give them up on their own. It falls on us artists to simply refuse to grant these monopolies in the first place. A copyleft license sends a clear, simple, and non-negotiable message to middlemen that they need to innovate and compete to profit from the work. Only we artists can supply the incentives they need to do their jobs well; and we can only do that by refusing monopolies.

A middleman without a monopoly is a great help to art and artists. Rather than abusing monopolies, they provide valuable services. The better they are at providing services, the more successful they become. Competition keeps middlemen on their toes, and eliminates the lazy and incompetent. Monopoly does the opposite.

In sum, the problem isn't middlemen, it's monopolies. Yay for middlemen! I love middlemen!

Filed Under: film, middlemen, monopolies