MPAA Exec: Only We Can Make Content That People Want

from the 'scuse-me? dept

Sometimes I wonder if the execs who run the major copyright-related trade groups ever talk to actual people outside of their little bubbles. Because they say things that are so out of touch with reality that it's stunning. We already discussed the panel where the RIAA's Cary Sherman said that various ISPs will start acting as copyright cops by July, but some of the other statements on that panel are worth discussing as well. It was basically a panel of all the big copyright industry trade group associations -- the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA (software) and the AAP (book publishers).

What was most stunning is the pure hubris of the MPAA's Fritz Attaway, who flat out claimed that only they can make content that people want:

"Our industries do something that no one else can do," the Motion Picture Association of America's Fritz Attaway said at the Association of American Publishers annual meeting this morning. "We create content that people want to have."

Actually, no, tons of others create content that people want to have, and it's the real reason you're struggling so much today. You're not used to competing with those outside your little club.

The folks on the panel (with the exception of the BSA, who famously flip flopped its views on SOPA) brought out the usual crap about how SOPA was defeated via "disinformation":

"Right doesn't always prevail," Attaway said of SOPA and PIPA. "This time, it didn't, because our opponents were able to energize a grassroots response. In my view, and I think all of us would agree, [the protest against SOPA and PIPA was spread] primarily through disinformation and spinning their interest in a way that captured the attention of a number of consumers."

This is such a load of hogwash. The MPAA has been a master at disinformation campaigns throughout its history. It's why it's been able to continually ratchet up copyright law in its favor for decades. This is the same industry who declared that the VCR would kill it... and now whines that the home video market that wouldn't even exist if it had gotten its way is being decimated by the internet. Did some folks on the anti-SOPA side get some of the facts wrong? Yeah, but it wasn't a disinformation campaign. That's what the MPAA ran. And, the only reason there was some misinformation in the campaign against SOPA was because the MPAA went so far in its initial version of the bill (and make no mistake, the bill came from the MPAA), that people reacted to that. It's true that eventually some of the worst parts were removed and people who didn't realize that still referred to the original text. But it's not like they made things up wholesale. The MPAA, on the other hand, regularly made up claims out of thin air -- such as the supposed 2.2 million people this would effect. The industry employs less than 400,000, and many of them have nothing to do with the copyright/royalties side of the business.

The article by Laura Hazard Owen at PaidContent notes that these association bosses are now finally talking of "engagement" with those who disagreed with them on SOPA, but they still are only thinking about industries -- not internet users. They have no interest in actually talking to the riff-raff they look down upon, but still expect to give them money. Maybe that -- more than anything else -- is their problem.

Also, don't think they're done pushing for bad legislation. The RIAA's Cary Sherman noted that the plan was to push for legislation that was less likely to rally up the grassroots again:

The RIAA's Sherman hopes further copyright discussions will be more "rational" than the debate over SOPA and PIPA. "The digital tsunami we encountered with SOPA and PIPA—we're not going to get the same kind of engagement when we talk about statutory damages or open works," he said. "We'll have the opportunity for a more rational discussion."

You see, in Sherman's mind, any time anyone disagrees with the RIAA's stated position, that's no longer a "rational" discussion. But because "statutory damages" sound so boring, he's hopeful that they can pass even worse laws to make the already insane damages rates even more insane.

The whole thing shows, yet again, that these guys still have no idea what happened, and have no idea how to engage with the internet. It's sad to watch them flail around like this. If they'd only taken the time to actually use the internet and learn about it, perhaps they wouldn't always sound so clueless. But, of course, why would they use the internet? It's not like it even can produce any of the content they want...

Filed Under: content, fritz attaway, hubris
Companies: mpaa

RIAA, MPAA In Denial About The Death Of DRM

from the good-luck-with-that dept

As a bunch of you are submitting, at a panel discussion down in LA, an RIAA representative claimed not only was DRM not dead, but that it was making a comeback. However, the statements show a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening in the marketplace. RIAA technology guy David Hughes made this statement:

"I made a list of the 22 ways to sell music, and 20 of them still require DRM."

Well, David, I just made a list of 22 ways to sell transportation mechanisms, and 20 of them still require a buggy whip -- but it doesn't mean anyone will buy them. Then, even worse was the statement from the MPAA's Fritz Attaway:

"We need DRM to show our customers the limits of the license they have entered into with us."

Well, there's your problem Fritz. The second you focus on how to limit your customers, you've lost them. No one wants to be limited these days. They want to be able to do what they want and they will reward those who allow them to do so. Treating your customers as people to be limited (i.e., people who you offer less value to) pretty much guarantees that they'll go elsewhere.

Filed Under: david hughes, denial, drm, fritz attaway, mpaa, riaa
Companies: mpaa, riaa

MPAA Explains Why It's Okay To Tie Federal Funds To Blocking File Sharing

from the because-we-say-so,-dammit dept

While Congress' new bill on education funding may not be as bad as some are making it out to be, it still seems quite questionable that Congress appears to be regulating the idea that universities need to do the kind of marketing and educational campaigns that the recording industry cannot. We've asked supporters of the bill to explain how it could possibly make sense to mandate such things, and the MPAA's top lawyer, Fritz Attaway, has given his answer, claiming that it's because the internet is "used primarily to allow college students to traffic in infringing content," while being subsidized by gov't funds. It would be nice if Attaway or someone else at the MPAA could actually back up the claim that the primary use of the internet by students is infringement. While I wouldn't doubt that it's a popular use, to say that it's the primary use is hard to believe -- unless you count things like visiting Facebook pages, using Google and sending emails as "infringement." At the same time, this doesn't seem to support the reasons for this bill. After all, many kids on college campuses own cars -- and I'd imagine that most of those students break the speed limit frequently enough. Yet, we don't see any bills being proposed in Congress that would prevent financial aid funding unless universities start handing out more speeding tickets and put in place plans to offer public transportation. So why should they do that for copyright infringement?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, fritz attaway, mpaa, music, subscriptions, universities
Companies: congress, mpaa, napster, ruckus