Story About Ex-Sony Pictures Boss Magically Disappears From Gawker; His Lawyer Tells Reporters Not To Talk About It

from the right-to-be-forgotten? dept

Can people use a bankruptcy proceeding to create a "right to be forgotten"? We already know that Europe has implemented a form of a right to be forgotten that it's now looking to expand. However, in the US, the First Amendment has protected us against such things -- even if some politicians don't realize it.

However, it appears that something has happened, hidden behind the sealed doors of Gawker's bankruptcy that has resulted in a story about ex-Sony Pictures boss Michael Lynton disappearing from the Gawker archive:

A 2015 Gawker article that highlighted leaked emails written by Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton has been quietly removed from the internet, the latest in a line of stories from the former digital media company to be disappeared under apparent legal pressure from powerful figures.

The story pieced together some of Lynton’s emails disclosed in the Sony Hack, the monstrous dump of company materials in late 2014 that was catastrophic for the studio and widely covered by the media.

Lynton -- who once claimed that nothing good has come from the internet ever -- left Sony Pictures recently to focus on being chair of the board at Snap, the company that does Snapchat (a company that kinda relies on that no good, very bad internet Lynton hates). But apparently, on the side, he was somehow secretly convincing the Gawker "estate" to delete some articles he didn't like.

This is different than when Univsion pulled down a bunch of Gawker stories after purchasing many of the company's assets out of bankruptcy. In that case, Univision claimed -- questionably -- that since it had purchased just the assets, but not liabilities, it had to take down any story that was subject to a lawsuit. This ignored a whole bunch of things, including the "first publication" rule, but whatever. In this case, the story was still hosted by what's left of Gawker. That is, when Gawker sold a bunch of assets to Univision, it did not sell the flagship "Gawker" site itself, but has instead maintained the archives. And that included some stories on Lynton that revealed things via the Sony Pictures email hack.

And thus it appears that some sort of settlement was reached behind the scenes, with no public explanation or details... to flat out delete a story that apparently Lynton or someone close to Lynton didn't like. As reporter Matthew Zeitlin notes, we should all be concerned that a news story can disappear just "because of opaque bankruptcy proceedings." And, of course, because this is the internet, the Streisand Effect is already taking over, with people passing around links to the story that was disappeared. The story in question, like many stories, was probably embarrassing to some people, but there's been no evidence presented (publicly at least) that it was untrue. No one has shown any evidence that the Sony hack emails that it was based on were not accurate. Ironically, the suppressed story itself is, somewhat, about using money and connections to do things that normal people can't do, so perhaps it's only fitting that a behind the scenes, opaque process was then used to try to memory hole that story.

But the story gets even worse. The Hollywood Reporter has also reported on this and notes that Lynton's lawyer, Andrew Celli, has warned its reporter, Eriq Gardner, not to even report on the disappearing story:

Celli made contact to The Hollywood Reporter's general counsel to express concern after I made inquiries about the vanished article with Gawker. He later suggested that to even repeat the gist of the original Gawker story would be damaging. He threatened a lawsuit and, referring to the Sony hack, told me, “There is a sin at the bottom of this. It’s wrong. The source for information is the result of a crime.”

This is, in the famed words of Popehat, what is known as censorious thuggery. Threatening people with litigation for reporting the news creates serious chilling effects. As Gardner notes in his article -- and as we've been reporting ourselves -- there seems to be a big business lately in so-called "reputation management" efforts to get embarrassing news stories disappeared from the internet. That should concern everyone. There's a reason that the US has a 1st Amendment and rejects things like a "Right to be Forgotten." Such things have a history of being abused by the rich and powerful to silence the press, just because the rich and powerful don't like those stories.

Even if one could give Lynton the benefit of the doubt in getting Gawker's estate to take down the original story, the fact that his lawyer then threatened another publication with a lawsuit just for reporting on the situation makes this even more problematic. Lynton may not like the internet very much, but that doesn't mean he gets to censor it at will.

Filed Under: michael lynton, right to be forgotten, threats
Companies: gawker, snap, sony, sony pictures

Studios Fed Up With Funding The MPAA: Changes May Be Coming

from the about-time dept

A few years ago, the major record labels finally started to realize that, perhaps, shoveling many millions of dollars to the RIAA was a waste of good money, and they severely cut back funds. You may have noticed that, while the RIAA had taken the lead on the copyright front in the first decade of the new century, over the past few years, it's been a lot quieter than the MPAA. It appears that the MPAA may be about to go through a similar transition. Just a few weeks ago, we pointed out that the MPAA seemed to be desperately trying to justify its existence by doubling down on ridiculous and misleading claims about "piracy" and "content theft" rather than actually helping studios adapt to the modern era. We also noted that MPAA boss Chris Dodd was on something of an apology tour after the MPAA was caught completely off guard by the Sony Hack and did basically nothing about it, seriously pissing off execs at Sony.

There's a reason Dodd was groveling. It appears that the studios are finally realizing that maybe the MPAA isn't working in their best interests after all, but is just focused on justifying its own existence:

In a behind-the-scenes drama, the Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton last month told industry colleagues of a plan to withdraw from the movie trade organization, according to people who have been briefed on the discussions. He cited the organization's slow response and lack of public support in the aftermath of the attack on Sony and its film “The Interview,” as well as longstanding concerns about the cost and efficacy of the group.

While the MPAA convinced Sony to stay in, it appears that the major studios are thinking it's about time the MPAA shift its focus -- and tighten its belt a bit:

If adopted, their still emerging propositions might jolt the group into line with the new realities of a changing entertainment business. They might, for instance, open the association to new members and expand its interests to include television programs or digital content. They might also reduce the heavy annual contribution of more than $20 million that is required of each of the six member companies: Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Sony.

The report notes that they might even give up their super fancy DC headquarters (the "Jack Valenti Building") which is just blocks from the White House.

Of course, it's not entirely clear how the MPAA's focus will actually change. It wouldn't be surprising to find some studio execs still want to double down on backwards-thinking, anti-internet campaigns. But, at least some seem to recognize that Hollywood hasn't kept up with the times, and that's partly because the MPAA kept focusing them on the last war, rather than on updating for the internet era.

Kevin Tsujihara, the chief executive of Warner Bros., said he, like Mr. Dodd, welcomed an examination of the organization that would mirror a similar review of cost and mission at his company. “Now is as good a time as any” to look at fundamental questions, Mr. Tsujihara said in an interview. He added: “We haven’t, as an industry, evolved fast enough.”

And, as we've pointed out, it really seems bizarre that the MPAA spends so much on an entire "content protection" division. At least some of the studios appear to be questioning the value of that approach:

But those briefed on the position of several companies said virtually all the studios have chafed lately at the high cost of maintaining the M.P.A.A., along with its worldwide antipiracy and market access operations, particularly as Sony, Warner and others are cutting staff and costs.

Frankly, as we've argued for years, it would be great if the MPAA actually became a forward-looking organization that looked to help the industry adapt to the modern era. It appears the organization is going through an inevitable crisis after years of making bad bets. Hopefully, it recognizes that embracing the future, rather than fighting it, is the way forward.

Filed Under: chris dodd, content protection, hollywood, lobbying, michael lynton, sony hack, studios
Companies: mpaa, sony, warner bros.

Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy

from the must-be-the-new-talking-point dept

I'm beginning to sense a trend. Just last month, we talked about a top exec at Paramount claiming that his "real worry" about movie piracy online was how it was going to harm indie films, since, as a big company, Paramount could take it. Then, just a week or so later, Sony Pictures' boss, Michael Lynton, also started talking about how fewer movies were being made due to piracy. Unfortunately, he was wrong. In the past five years the number of films being released has more than doubled and the major studios are making more money than ever at the box office. And yet... they keep trying. Dark Helmet points us to the news that the CEO of Fox Films, Jim Gianopulos, is the latest to claim that movie "piracy" is harming independent films the most (while saying it's harming everyone in the movie business, despite no evidence to support that claim). He made this statement while suggesting that the US needs to follow France in kicking people off the internet for file sharing accusations (not convictions).

It looks like the heads of the studios have all received their talking points from the same source (MPAA?) on this one. They're going to talk up the supposed harm to indie films, even as the indie film market appears to be figuring stuff out on its own (in part due to smart indie film producers embracing file sharing as a better means of distribution and promotion). My guess is that the strategy is a response to the realization that those massive box office returns don't look good when the major studios argue for more draconian copyright laws, so just as the RIAA makes up stories about "protecting the up-and-coming artist," the major studios and the MPAA are now using a bogus PR strategy of "protecting the indie filmmaker," when all they really want are more laws to offer additional protectionist policies for the next blockbuster.

Filed Under: copyright, indie films, jim gianopulos, michael lynton, movies, piracy
Companies: fox films

Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise

from the whoops dept

Ah, remember Michael Lynton? The Sony Pictures CEO who earlier this year insisted that nothing good had come from the internet at all. When everyone started mocking him for this statement, rather than back off, he doubled down and insisted it was true, using examples that were easily debunked. Apparently, he hasn't learned his lesson. He's back at it, pushing for the UK (and others) to pass laws kicking people off the internet (so-called "three strikes" laws) while insisting that due to piracy there's less money to make movies and fewer movies being made. Of course, those are things that can be fact checked, and the folks over at TorrentFreak did exactly that, pointing out that more movies are coming out each year and more money is being made. Oops.

The way Lynton tries to get around this is by not actually talking about how many movies are coming out, but just counting the number of movies that came out of "the leading studios." I find this quite amusing, because in the podcast we discussed last week involving Paramount's Scott Martin, part of his argument was that while the big studios were fine, the independents were all suffering and fewer movies were coming out because of it -- and, as a "fan" of independent movies, he found that sad. I didn't bother to check the numbers, but it appears that Martin was simply wrong. More movies are being made, and it looks like an increasing percentage of them are coming from smaller independent shops.

The problem, again, seems to be that the folks at the movie studios (just like those at the record labels) only like to count the big hits as successes -- rather than the smaller projects that actually make money and make up the majority of the actual market. It's the same sort of thinking that makes movie studio people insist that we need to explain to them how they can keep making $200 million movies. That's the wrong question. The question is how do you make profitable movies. The technology has advanced such that it's cheaper and cheaper to make movies (which is why we have more of them). But notice that the studios never focus on ways to make movies in a more economical way, but how can they keep spending. Perhaps that's a bigger problem than "online piracy."

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, internet, michael lynton, movies, piracy
Companies: sony

Sony Pictures CEO: The Internet Is Still Bad

from the digging-a-deeper-hole dept

A week and a half ago, Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton made some news for saying that nothing good had come from the internet, period. Plenty of online sites (including ours) took him to task for that, wondering how one gets to be the CEO of a major content company without understanding the internet. Today, Lynton hit back at critics -- not by saying he was quoted out of context or misunderstood, but by standing behind the statement and adding some gems to it as well. Let's take a look...

In March, an unfinished copy of 20th Century Fox's film X-Men Origins: Wolverine was stolen from a film lab and uploaded to the Internet, more than a month before its theatrical release. The studio investigated the crime, and efforts were made to limit its availability online. Still, it was illegally downloaded more than four million times.

And, as was widely noted, the movie still opened to a massive box office take, despite pretty dreadful reviews all over. In fact, the movie had a lot more buzz leading up to it because of all the talk about the leak. Funny that Lynton seems to ignore that part. Could it really be that the CEO of a major motion picture studio doesn't understand that people go to the movies for the experience, and not just the content?

I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I've stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

This is like saying "the major transportation companies and the most talented creators of transportation devices -- horse carriages, buggy whips, blacksmiths -- have all been seriously harmed by the automobile." Markets change. They may cause trouble for dinosaurs unable or unwilling to adapt, but they have not harmed content creation or the content business. And it's not "the internet" that has harmed the "most talented creators of that content." It's folks like Michael Lynton who seem to be funnelling them towards bad business models.

Some of that damage has been caused by changing business models (the FTC just announced an inquiry into the impact of new media on the newspaper industry). But the primary culprit is piracy. The Internet has brought people with no regard for the intellectual property of others together with a technology that allows them to easily steal that property and sell or give it away to everyone, with little fear of being caught or prosecuted.

Wow! At least he's able to admit that business models play a role, but he's flat out wrong about blaming piracy. He claims that it's "people with no regard for the intellectual property of others," which is hilarious coming from Hollywood -- a town built on showing no regard for the intellectual property of Thomas Edison. You know what comes out of showing no regard for artificial scarcity? Amazing new industries. Lynton is a product of piracy... and yet now that he's in charge, it's evil? Funny stuff...

To be clear, my concern about piracy does not obscure my understanding that the Internet has had a transformative impact on our culture and holds enormous potential to improve the prospects of humanity, and in many instances already has. I am no Luddite. I am not an analogue guy living in a digital world. I ran an Internet company and my studio actively uses the web to market and sell our movies and television shows. We create original content for new media.

If you think that "using the web to sell and market our movies and television" or "creating original content for new media" represents what the internet has to offer, you really need to educate yourself on the internet. It's not about selling and marketing. It's about interactivity. Hire someone who doesn't hate the internet, please.

And yes, new talents have emerged thanks to the democratic and viral impact of the web. Yes, the rise of new distribution platforms for existing content is exciting and rich with promise.

But at the same time, I cannot subscribe to the views of those online critics who insist that I "just don't get it," and claim the world has so fundamentally changed because of the web that conventional practices concerning property rights no longer apply; that the Internet should be left to develop entirely unfettered and unregulated.

It's not that "conventional practices concerning property rights no longer apply," it's that content isn't property. You've been blinded by the phrase "intellectual property" into believing it's something that it is not. The internet is neither unfettered nor unregulated. What you're really complaining about is that technology has put a crimp on your old business model, and rather than adjust, you want new laws to force things back to the way they were before -- back before we had the rise of new distribution platforms and the ability to share content that we like with one another.

Back when automobiles were first introduced, laws were passed requiring people to walk in front of every automobile waving red flags. Officially this was for safety, but it was really an attempt to limit the automobile and keep things the way they used to be for carriage makers. You're not asking for reasonable rules and regulations. You're asking for red flags and a speed limit of 5 mph when cars can easily go 120mph.

In no other realm of our society have we encountered so widespread and consequential a failure to put in place guidelines over the use and growth of such a major industry.

There are guidelines. You don't like the ones that are there, and the market has decided that many of them don't make sense. Let history be a lesson to you: when the majority of people think that "guidelines" don't make sense, making them even more stringent isn't going to fix things. Instead, it's time to look for opportunities within what people are doing.

I'm not talking here about censorship, taxation or burdensome government restrictions.

Yes, you are. You'll just call them something different.

I'm talking about reasonable boundaries, "rules of the road," that can help promote the many positive attributes of Internet technology while curtailing its hugely damaging effects.

Right, just as reasonable as the guys waving flags in front of cars. Those were designed to promote the many positive attributes of the automobile while curtailing its hugely damaging effects. The problem then, as now, is that people looked at the automobile through the prism of the horse carriage (that's why they were originally called horseless carriages). So the idea that they could travel much faster was seen as a bad thing (ooh, dangerous!) rather than a good thing. The same thing is true today. The fact that people can share content and help promote and distribute it for you is seen by you as a bad thing (oooh, dangerous!), but once things shake out, those who don't hate the internet will realize it's actually a huge opportunity for new businesses to grow and thrive. It's 1904. Do you want to be the CEO of the Durant-Dort Carriage Company or do you want to run Buick? William Durant made the right choice. You're making the wrong one.

And this becomes even more critical as governments around the world are subsidizing and promoting the ubiquity of high speed broadband to make their economies more efficient and competitive. With this increase in speed, content will travel that much more easily on the Internet. But without restraints, much of that content will be contraband.

Yes, as nations around the world are subsidizing national highways, this becomes ever more important. With this increase in speed, automobiles will be able to travel that much more easily. Without restraints, much of that travel will break the speed limit.

I've already seen it happen in South Korea, which has one of the most highly developed broadband networks in the world. But piracy has also become so highly developed there that we and virtually every other studio has recently had to curtail or close down our home entertainment businesses. It's hard to sell a legal DVD when it can be stolen without any repercussions.

And yet, there are new businesses springing up every day to take advantage of this wonderful abundance. JY Park is building a massive entertainment empire in South Korea by embracing the fact that everything he does will be "pirated" in some manner. But he's still bringing in a ton of money. That's because he's not focused on how to sell horse drawn carriages any more, but how to make automobiles go faster and faster.

Contrast the expansion of the Internet with what happened a half century ago. In the 1950's, the Eisenhower Administration undertook one of the most massive infrastructure projects in our nation's history -- the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It completely transformed how we did business, traveled, and conducted our daily lives. But unlike the Internet, the highways were built and operated with a set of rational guidelines. Guard rails went along dangerous sections of the road. Speed and weight limits saved lives and maintenance costs. And officers of the law made sure that these rules were obeyed. As a result, as interstates flourished, so did the economy. According to one study, over the course of its first four decades of existence, the Interstate Highway System was responsible for fully one-quarter of America's productivity growth.

But that highway is already built. You're not asking for reasonable guidelines. You're asking people to walk in front of automobiles waving red flags, while everyone else is already zipping around in their automobiles.

We can replicate that kind of success with the Internet more easily if we do more to encourage the productivity of the creative engines of our society -- the artists, actors, writers, directors, singers and other holders of intellectual property rights -- yes, including the movie studios, which help produce and distribute entertainment to billions of people worldwide.

We're already replicating that kind of success. Your problem is that it's happening without you.

But, without standards of commerce and more action against piracy, the intellectual property of humankind will be subject to infinite exploitation on the Internet.

Imagine a resource that is infinitely exploitable? Imagine that wonderful abundance? Who could possibly complain about that? Oh right, those who benefited from the previous scarcity. Still, it's quite amazing to see someone actually complain about abundance.

How many people will be as motivated to write a book or a song, or make a movie if they know it is going to be immediately stolen from them and offered to the world with no compensation whatsoever?

Well, considering how many people create content today already, I'd say plenty. And, of course, this statement has an implicit fallacy embedded in it: that because content can be shared (not "stolen") that it means there's "no compensation whatsoever." Need we remind you that despite Wolverine being "stolen," compensation came in at about $90 million in its first weekend? If that's the kind of "no compensation whatsoever" we can expect when content gets "stolen," sign me up.

And how many people whose work is connected with those creative industries -- the carpenters, drivers, food service workers, and thousands of others -- will lose their jobs as piracy robs their business of resources?

Oh, right. The poor carpenters, drivers and food service workers. Well, since we've already pointed out that there's still plenty of compensation, they'll continue to be just fine. They don't get paid based on some obsolete business model. They get paid by the hour. That continues.

Internet users have become used to getting things when they want it and how they want it, and those of us in the entertainment business want to meet that kind of demand as efficiently and effectively as possible.

You say that as if you mean it, while the entire rest of your article is about how you don't want to meet that demand, and how you want that efficiency walled off and blocked via gov't fiat.

But what has happened online is that if it is 'beyond store hours' and the shop is closed, a lot of people just smash the window and steal what they want.

No one is "stealing" anything. What are you missing? No windows are broken. And, part of your problem is the fact that you think the shop "closes." If you can't recognize that the shop doesn't close anymore, you shouldn't be running a major content company.

Freedom without restraint is chaos, and if we don't figure out some way to prevent online chaos, the quantity, quality and availability of the kinds of entertainment, literature, art and scholarship we need to have a healthy, vibrant culture will suffer.

I don't know which culture you're looking at, but it seems to be me that entertainment, literature, art and scholarship are all thriving like they never have before. Where's the problem, other than your own inability to adapt?

In my own household I know it is my responsibility, along with my wife, to monitor how my family uses the Internet for school work and enjoyment. And I know the web can play a big role in our daughters' future. But I also want their future to be filled with the kind of music and books and films and other creative sparks that have enlivened my life and our culture through the years.

And, thankfully, she'll be able to experience a lot more of such culture thanks to the internet and the efficiency it allows. Many authors, musicians and filmmakers today are purposely putting their works of art online for free. Would you like some pointers to help with your daughters' cultural education? We're more than willing to help.

Because actually I'm a guy who wants to see lots of good things come from the Internet. But it's not going to happen the way it should if we do not act now to safeguard the fruit of our world's most imaginative and talented minds. Period.

The only "safeguarding" you've suggested is your own obsolete business model. It's got nothing to do with culture and content creation. It has nothing to do with the internet. It has everything to do with the fact that you're viewing all content creation through the distorted prism of the movie making industry, where content creation comes from a big corporation and is then mass marketed and sold to the people. You need to step out from behind that prism, put down the red flags you're waving in front of automobiles, jump onto a passing car, and look at all the wonderful things the internet allows in terms of creativity and new business models. Don't let Sony Pictures be the Durant-Dort Carriage Company, clinging to the past.

Filed Under: copyright, intellectual property, internet, michael lynton, movies, piracy
Companies: sony

Sony Pictures CEO: Nothing Good Has Come From The Internet

from the and-that-is-why-you-fail dept

We were just talking about how Sony CEO Howard Stringer was lamenting the fact that Sony didn't embrace openness and new technologies like the internet earlier. Perhaps part of the problem is the execs who work under him. Mathew Ingram points out that at a recent panel discussion the CEO of Sony Pictures, Michael Lynton, said: "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the internet. Period."

Perhaps that explains why you're failing to figure out how to embrace it?

I recently wrote up something for Open Forum talking about how every threat is really an opportunity. A threat just means that someone else may have figured out how to serve your customers/community better. That should be seen as an opportunity for you to serve your community/customers better. An exec today who views those opportunities as threats, as apparently Michael Lynton does, shouldn't still have a job. It's bad for business. It's bad for shareholders. And it's bad for customers. Saying that there's nothing good that has come from the internet suggests someone so lacking in vision that it's scary he still has a job running a major motion picture studio.

Filed Under: internet, michael lynton, movies
Companies: sony