The MPAA and EFF Cross Sabers 401
wigwamus writes "Motion Picture Association President Dan Glickman and Electronic Freedom Foundation co-founder Johh Perry Barlow lock horns, then knock lumps off each other over the movie business' attitude to the Internet. From the article: 'These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices.'"
Re:Yep (Score:2, Interesting)
But you know the problem is - the bad news is that you're up against a dedicated foe that is younger and smarter that you are and will be alive when you're dead. You're 55 years old and these kids are 17 and they're just smarter than you. So you're gonna lose that one.
Also, I would think that these young individuals have a greater and farther reaching influence than the corporate bigshots. Internet. SERIOUS BUSINESS (really).
Ar ye pirates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it ironic that hollywood is seeing some of their biggest profits in ages, and as time elapses they continue to make more and more money. I know that they do lose money due to piracy, but most of that piracy comes from organized groups with huge copying and distribution capabilities. For those in NYC, how often have you seen "bootleggers" in front if the federal building, state office buildings even near police precints selling pirated copies. Why doesn't hollywood focus on finding the sources of these centers and shutting them down. If the government under hollywoods complaints can go and bother 17 year olds, how difficult would it be for the same government to find out who is buying multirecording DVD burners on a large scale. Let's get real.
Both sides have it wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
The MPAA and RIAA and various other organizations have it wrong in thinking that they will out-litigate these people because simply put, these people know what they're doing is illegal and choose to do it anyway.
I do agree with the concept that they need to make it possible for people to buy media in a conducive manner without an undo cost and they will make money. ITMS and several others are proving it's possible.
The MPAA can go ask the software industry exactly how profitable "stamping our piracy" has been for em. Or they can ask them how much inexpensive downloads have helped good software spread.
Real World Experience HAH! (Score:1, Interesting)
Interesting footnote (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I found this story via Slashdot, so there's no reason for major media organizations to NOT be aware of/reference the methods of "Web 2.0" in their online articles.
Nasty Ad-Hominems != Debate (Score:3, Interesting)
It's basically two guys taking nasty swipes at each other. I think that either BBC2 was actively and selectively trying to portray them like two implacable, mean-mouthed curmudgeons, or that JPB and the RIAA guy could both have been a bit more factual.
One thing I really don't like is the characterization of "Electronic Hezbollah", although it's a catchy term; it's not like there's an organized, widespread movement to thieve and destroy. Rather, it's a combination of a groundswell sentiment against excessive prices and insulting, oppressive consumer-unfriendly practices, and a wish to have more convenient and accessible media (remind me again why iTunes was so successful) that doesn't hinder people from listening to their music / watching their movies anywhere or doing a bit of sharing with their friends.
Perfect example of why I stopped giving to EFF (Score:4, Interesting)
To compare file traders to Hezbollah shows either a grotesque sense of proportion or a distorted sense of reality. Had it been the MPAA idiot making the comparision it would simply be the typical file traders == pirates == menace to society == torrorist rubbish we have grown to expect from those asshats. Dispicable but par for the course. But no, this quote was from the EFF, meaning they think the comparison is apt. Which either means they AGREE that trading files online is morally comparable to intentionally murdering women, children and other non-combatants or, more likely, they think terrorists, as long as they are politically correct anti-american/anti-semitic terrorists that is, are admirable people worthy of comparing oneself to.
Yes, the original goals of the EFF were praiseworthy and I supported them. But 9/11 apparently did change everything. Lately the EFF seems to spend most of its time and effort supporting the terrorists and even when, like this event, they were back on topic they can't seem to avoid showing their true political calling. Harsh criticism? Yes. But there is a difference between criticism of the current administration, criticism of your country, and supporting the enemy, lending them aid and comfort. And for most of the left today, they are so far over that line they don't even see the line anymore. Anyone who can entertain the notion there is ANYTHING praiseworthy in Hezbollah is someone who is way over the line.
Re:that's right, we're escalating (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Both sides have it wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yep (Score:2, Interesting)
The Americans just decided Dar Jeeling wasn't worth living under the imperial thumb.
Re:Comparing bits to concrete items? (Score:4, Interesting)
And I recall Princess Leia saying "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."
The gaming industry is a case in point. But they used to have both on and off disk copy protection schemes... the worse they got, the more people cracked them, because the cracked copies were easier and more fun to play without the game stopping to ask for word X in paragraph Y on page Z of the manual. Once they created the incentive to crack the game, they created the incentive to sell/distribute the cracked game.
The first thing I did after legally buying games was look up the crack on the internet.
These scemes are gone now, those are and will continue to be known as the dark ages of video gaming.
Now there are much better schemes in place. A lot of companies will replace media for a nominal fee. And they may make the media difficult to copy, but that difficulty doesn't affect gameplay or interoperability - because you don't expect an XBox game disc to work on a PS2. Some gaming companies are going online, even if you don't play online (like Steam.. no lost discs, there). It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than it was.
But the movie and recording industries are different... we're paying for content and we want to listen to it on whichever device catches our fancy. These are the dark ages of the **IA. They are making less money BECAUSE they insist on these copy protection schemes, not despite them. I wouldn't even buy a DVD player unless I knew it filtered macrovision and disabled region codes (yes, I had to pay extra for my last one, but it was worth it).
How many people have been trapped buying Apple ACCs only to discover they couldn't play them on their MP3 player? Yes, I know there's work-arounds, but that's the point - they are making it difficult to use the content you've LEGALLY purchased! Do they not understand that's a DISincentive to buyers?
Think of the irony... I bought a DVD player with region coding disabled and a macrovision filter (that works wonderfully, by the way). Now, I paid extra for this "functionality" that was present in the original unit until the manufacturer paid EXTRA (both in licensing and hardware fees) to remove that functionality!!! And who pays for those technical additions? WE DO! We pay, and are continuing to pay, for having functionality REMOVED from our products.
Where's the incentive for someone to pay $20 for a crippled, macrovision encoded, region locked DVD, when they can buy the illegal version for half the price and use it anywhere?
Of course there's morals involved... I don't have mp3s of anything I didn't pay for. I don't have any content on DVD that I didn't pay for, and it's against my nature to do so.
But I will send this message to the **ia's, I'd have purchased a lot more if you didn't make it so difficult.
I could rant about this for a long time, but I know I'm preaching to the choir. I've NEVER seen a valid reason for someone to buy an illegal copy of anything, or illegally copy someone elses material. But owning an illegal copy of something you own legally certainly shouldn't be a crime, IMO.
In other words, I think the industry should concentrate on making it beneficial to buy legal copies of material, they should spend less time and money on schemes that make it difficult to use legally purchased material and lawyers. Some company might lose 50 million dollars (yes, I know they claim billions as an industry as a whole), but how much did they spend on lawyers and licensing technological prevention schemes?
And who pays for all of this, ultimately?
Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Comparing bits to concrete items? (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to pay to see movies in a movie theater, now I have my own "theater" at home. Once a film has been filmed, produced, and distributed, it costs the movie studio virtually nothing to distribute that film over the internet.
I find it disturbing that TV shows cost more to buy from iTunes than if you wait and buy the DVD set at Best Buy, which had to be made, distributed to the Best Buy warehouse, then shipped to the store, then taken out of a box by hand, scanned, and put on a shelf...and then someone had to run the cash register, and of course the lights to the building had to be turned on, the rent had to be paid, etc. etc....when distributing a TV show by computer, only the servers, bandwidth, and Apple have to be paid for...why should it cost $44 for a 22 episode season by iTunes and cost $39.99 for the physical boxed set from Best Buy?
Re:Interesting footnote (Score:1, Interesting)
Automobiles vs. movies (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, I will admit that I do see one connection, though – automobiles depend on oil, which is another fairly unpopular industry which many feel is run by greedy old guys who only care about money. Not that this is necessarily true, of course, just figured I may as well point it out anyway.
Either way, though, as far as the "good" side of the argument goes – nothing there, unless I missed something (and yes, I did RTFA).
Re:Comparing bits to concrete items? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, those disks are gone. Some were rare and out of print. I really would have much appriciated it if those thieves had just copied the disks and left me with the originals.
Copyright infringment is *not* stealing.
actually copyrights promote terrorisim (Score:3, Interesting)
The media has an incentive to hype things, because it gets paid by the "number of eyeballs" value rather than by the service value of the news.
However the media would have no incentive to focus their resources toward grabbing eyeballs if competitors could copy their productions, because their effort would result in more up front costs without a competitive benefit.
Therefore if copyrights were scrapped, the media would be forced to neutralize hype, maximize services, and greatly increase the costs that terrorists must pay to communicate their message.
In sum, copyrights promote terrorisim.
Re:Excuse me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Aw geez. (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently in the US of A, being a terrorist means you have no rights. You can be a US citizen, arrested on US soil, for alleged acts committed in the US, and have none of the ordinary rights 'guaranteed' to someone in that situation.
You can be put in civilian prison, or a military prison, or sent to Gitmo, or sent overseas. You have no rights. You don't get a lawyer; you don't get a phone call. You don't even get a trial. You can be held for YEARS without the government even admitting you are being held.
You can be tortured. No interrogation technique is off limits.
You won't get to question witnesses or review the evidence against you. If you do happen to get a trial or hearing, the government can submit 'classified' evidence you won't know about. And the judges will assume all government evidence is true until you can prove otherwise. (How do you prove something you don't even know about is untrue? Well, that's your problem.)
And if that's how the US treats its own citizens--registered voters even!--think what we might do to the rest of the world.
So, if you've ever downloaded a movie or CD in a situation of any questionable legality, or used any kind of hack or work-around to perform any sort of replication of a DVD or CD, attempted to play a DVD on linux, even if you think your actions were covered under fair use, Barlow just said all the above should apply to you.
I'm not laughing.
Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, most people use standard DVD players, or their playstation 2, if they have one, and will never know or care about the pains of trying to play DVDs on a Fedora install. As for the FBI (or interpol) warning, well, originally, a selling point of DVDs was that you could skip past the previews and go straight to the movie. Now that VCRs are going extinct, the movie industry is designing DVDs that make you watch the previews anyway, and people are still sitting through it, to get to the movie. The point is that if they are willing to sit through five minutes of previews, then the FBI warning is no obstacle for them.
The only thing they really care about is that they can't make backup copies of their stuff. Most people however, are more cynical than idealistic, and so they just assume that because most people do not make backup copies of their cds and dvds, and because most of the people who do copy them, give copies away, that it is fair for the industry to do whatever they can to protect their content. Point is, the grassroots resentment toward the MPAA/RIAA isn't getting any better, and most people will jump through whatever hoops they're given.
I'm also wondering how long it will be before the RIAA comes up with a new media distribution format (a sort of super-audio-CD) that does something for the customer (maybe raises the sampling rate from 44k to 48k), and also uses a CSS-style encryption. Such a system would be cracked in no time, but the purpose of it would be to make mp3 rippers and unlicensed players illegal (through the DMCA ban on decryption software). Of course, they could then license the rights to microsoft and a few other companies to create software (some of it would come with WMP) that could rip the music into a heavily DRMed format, so that end-users would get just enough freedom to make them use the format. The funny thing is that Microsoft would warn people that they no longer support mp3 ripping of this new media because it is "insecure", and people would eventually stop using mp3 because they perceive it as an outdated technology.
Re:Excuse me (Score:2, Interesting)
Sharing. Funny choice of words there. Because you're not sharing, you're copying. Now, if you had a system set up where listening/watching a given copy of a song/movie precluded others from accesing that particular copy, that would be sharing. And in my opinion, that's where we ought to be headed. You buy a copy of a movie and you can share it with anyone you want, but only with one person at a time.
Re:The funny part is ... (Score:3, Interesting)
"The real deal in all this mess is that content creators "REALLY DON'T NEED THE *AA ANYMORE" since for not much more than a data center contract, any record label, including independents, can set up their own music distribution system over the Internet."
Indeed. Magnatune [magnatune.com] is a great example. They've stated that their top artists can make hundreds of dollars a year. The catch is, of course, that to have your work published by Magnatune, you need to come up with the recording yourself -- unlike a typical recording contract, where the record company funds the recording, but they get the rights to the recording. And Magnatune is great for music fans, too -- you can pay as low as $5 for a CD if you like; you can share it, and it's free from DRM.
So, Magnatune is great for musicians who have the means and ability to create their own recordings, and who are satisfied with making hundreds of dollars a year. And it's great for music fans who want to pay about half of what they would on iTunes, and who don't like DRM -- in other words, pretty much everybody reading this.
Why Magnatunes is not hugely popular with either musicians or the general public is, as the math textbooks like to say, an exercise left to the reader.
Re:Excuse me (Score:4, Interesting)
Just play devil's advocate here, but how is this different then riding at the front of the bus? Both are done endangering one self, both result in personal gain, both are done through ideologies of corrupt or broken systems, both are (were) equally illegal, and both have their martyrs and their advocates. Just as riding at the front of the bus "disserviced" the people who "rightfully owned" that location, downloading a song "disservices" the artist which "rightfully owns" all uses of that IP. Both situations masked the truth that it was the corrupt system that was screwing people over, not the people being disserviced, nor the people who were disservicing them.
It's easy to point at someone who is stealing something and simply say "cry more n00b". Easy to tell them that they don't have a right to those ideals. But you are in fact wrong. They do have a right to those ideals, and to "fight" the perceived corruption through peaceable disobedience, whether or not that disobedience results in personal gain. They then also have the right to pay for their actions and be held responsible for a disruption of public law. It's the way it's worked for over 200 years in this country, and it's worked well at destroying corrupt systems and granting inherent rights.
If there is indeed an inherent right to do what you want with things you own, then the "pirates" will win. It's the way our society is made right now, and they will do so no matter what names you call them or whether or not you think they are petty thugs committing crimes.
Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt that. The real battle is that the RIAA/MPAA style companies are in are to preserve themselves. What they are really afraid of, but you never hear them say so, is the destruction of their business model.
These companies pretend to exist under the banner of "protecting" the artists and IP. In truth, they often take the IP away from the artists themselves, and take by far the lion's share of the profits. Nothing really wrong with that as it is just a standard business practice.
However, with the advent of P2P technologies and the like, distribution is becoming decentralized, which is what the MPAA/RIAA specialize in. Their position as those who control the distribution of media is threatened, and that is their entire business model. If artists sell music directly to the public via P2P or similar technologies, the industries will have no revenue stream, and they will go out of business. The artists will get more revenue, and the distribution companies will get little to none.
In the long run, artists will have more control over their work, and become wealthier for it. A free market for media is arising, and this is just what the distribution companies don't want. So, the "pirating" is giving rise to more of a free market system, and this could destroy the RIAA/MPAA.
If they really wanted to help artists as they claim, they would roll out a distribution system based on P2P, and hand all the control to the artists of this system, and merely monitor the P2P network to keep it working. That of course, would reduce their profits, and make the artists more wealthy, and they cant cut their own revenue stream now can they?
So, instead, the market acts around them, and this system will arise all on it's own, and destroy them just the same. It is just a matter of time.
Re:Excuse me (Score:4, Interesting)
That argument is this: if there's so much of a sea change that an entire generation is willing to ignore the law in order to do someting, then there is a vast and untapped market to be won by someone who is able to puzzle out how.
We said this for years while Sony introduce MiniDisc and various other crippled electronic devices. As MP3 players started to hedge toward the mainstream, Apple saw the opening and dove for it. Now they're more popular than beer.
If the movie and record industries would get their collective heads out of their asses and think about this problem as a demonstration of a vast reservior of market potential, they could, I am sure, create a new golden age of entertainment profits.
How?
I'm not sure. There are literally dozens of ways, and I'm probably not in the right place to figure out which is best.
- Serialized movies that are released, freely downloadable to the net, as soon as the next installment is released in theaters, with "collecteds" being released semi-anually on DVD along with various extras (modeled on the comics industry that long ago realized that kids sharing comics was helping, not hurting)
- Movies that are created collaboratively, and then released under a free license. This plays off of the one major advantage left to them: control over distribution.
- Movies that are first released in a low-res, WiP format to the Net, and then re-released in finished form to theaters ONLY if they do well online (movies guaranteed not to completely suck... what an idea)
- Movies where ALL of the footage and all of the models for CG and all of the drawings, music, etc. are released for download via a peer-to-peer system such as torrent, and the best edit is released in theaters and on DVD
In other words, make movies a service with real value-add. Use the marketing and distribution channels to full advantage while harnessing the file-sharers as viral marketing. MAKE LEMONADE!However, IMHO, this will never happen. Movies will continue to be made the way they are made now. It will take a new industry (one which has been growing steadily since the 1970s) to take advantage of this. I'm seeing the indie community on the east coast start to figure this out. The studios have tried to take over the indie film community, but every time they almost do, it changes and slips out of their hands. Eventually, someone's going to change the rules, and the studios will simple cease to be relevant.