Slashdot Mirror
Fox CEO Says Tech & Media Should Work Together
An anonymous reader writes "An article running on cnn.com talks about how Peter Chernin, CEO of Fox and COO of News Corp., says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries. It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!) showing up to say 'there is no free lunch'."
Piracy in all its forms is not a technical problem, but a social problem.
Technical solutions to social problems will never succeed. Build a better lock? Someone will build a better lockpick. Unless the social problem is dealt with, the technical solutions will continue to fail.
But I fear that the Entertainment Industry's idea of "cooperation" is saying that Technology needs to be crippled to prevent the Entertainment industry from becoming irrelevant. No compromise.
As I've said here several times, (paraphrased from Steven P. Jobs himself), Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one. If content can be seen and heard, it can be copied, no matter what technological measures are put in place. If banning people from ever making any copies will never work, why not concentrate more on convincing people that they shouldn't make illegal copies, and making them want to buy legitimate versions even in the face of easy piracy?
The smartest thing Chernin did was to get geek faves like Lucas and Jackson to speak on his cause's behalf. The second smartest thing was to play up the fact that the entertainment industry is more than just the "misguided artists" and the "evil fat cat suits," but includes all the blue collar workers found in any "normal" industry.
So many times I read about the evil **AA's, as if people don't realize these trade industry groups exist to do the bidding, and often the dirty work, of the creative entities like Lucas. Valenti and Rosen are paid to be targets for the heat-seekers so that the creative brands aren't tarnished by politics.
Chernin wisely realized -- and I've no doubt others in the entertainment industry who will be speaking publicly on this topic will realize also -- that Joe Sixpack doesn't give a rat's ass about some distribution exec in an expensive suit, but let the creator of Boba Fett get up there in a black turtleneck, and the crowd melt likes butter.
Now that the gloves are really off in the fight for public opinion, this gets interesting...
Media is holding the legislative gun to the head of Tech, and now suggesting that we "work together". They've already got a protection racket going over artists, now they're moving into extortion.
I for one would prefer a world without blockbuster movies or obnoxious pop bands, so long as they keep their filthy coke-dusted hands out of my computer Tell those bastards to solve their own problems!
DRM only helps the middlemen monopoly
I work. I get paid. I stop working; I stop getting paid. Some people have set up systems with "residual" income. They want to work, get paid, stop working, and keep getting paid. That's the Metallica plan, and the Hillary Rosen plan (she gets paid for help running the residual income racket for Metallica).
Without DRM, you make recordings/films, and give them away. Even if you charge for them and some people pay lots of people are going to see/hear it without you getting a dime from them. Then people (might, if your stuff doesn't SUCK) want to go see a live show or a big-screen showing of your work. You can charge admission to the closed event. You can show stuff in the event that you haven't given away. You stop working; you stop getting paid; you'd better have a savings plan!
Residual income is not economic production. It is pure monopoly rent. Either you believe in competition and the marketplace or you don't. Art is better off without the strong controls of a "sponsorship" system where you need a rich person to give your work the thumbs-up before you are "let in" to the closed distribution system.
The people pushing for DRM are the "golden handcuffs" vendors who offer the age-old devil's sell out contract. They would like to remove the option of not selling your soul. They almost have. This is not about making sure people pay for the art they see/hear. This is about media companies making sure there is no art without getting the biggest cut of the action.
They want to throttle our art to decrease supply and advertise to bolster demand so they can raise prices and fatten up the margin. It is all about setting up a monopoly and price controls and other stuff that slips past the Sherman Act.
They want to prevent artists from reaching people except through them. IT IS A RACKET!
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
The real problem is the Federal Court System
is far too slow, expensive, and overpowered
for suing an individual pirate. What good is
it to sue "WzDood345" for pirating $500 worth
of music, if it costs $500,000 in legal fees
and he/she just files for bankruptcy anyway?
This isn't just a problem for the big media
companies: it makes it impossible for indie
content creators to sue pirates. Sony could
in theory afford to waste $500,000 to make
an example of a pirate. A garage band can't.
Instead of draconian laws or orwellian DRM
hardware, I suggest we need a simplified
Federal Small-Claims Copyright Court, where
copyright infringents less than (insert $$)
could be handled pro-se (without lawyers).
Then you, or Lars Ulrich, or anyone else
could fill out some paperwork, explain the
case to the judge in plain english, and
collect $500 from WzDood345 for pirating
your stuff.
>;k
- All open source digital TV and Software Defined Radio applications will be illegal
- No digital output technology may be incorporated into DTV devices (including commodity general-purpose PCs) without Hollywood's permission
- No digital removable media technology may be incorporated into DTV devices (including commodity general-purpose PCs) without Hollywood's permission
Setos described this as a "well-mannered marketplace." This is the kind of co-operation that Fox wants from technology: roll over, bare your belly, and build only those devices that Hollywood grants permission for.I'm getting really tired of people equating copying information with 'theft.' Copyright breach it may be (an entirely different kettle of fish, as anyone who understand copyright knows), but theft it is not. The two circumstances are not even remotely similar enough to warrant such a comparison, and anyone who argues otherwise is committing a False Analogy fallacy. (Going into a store and "five-finger discounting" the actual CD is both theft and copyright breach, just to be sure we're clear on that.)
Nothing has been "taken," nothing is "missing," and certainly nothing is "gone" when someone makes a digital copy of something -- unlike Chernin's False Analogy argument about dresses from Wal-Mart.
That's not to say that copyright breach isn't some kind of crime, or that it's not wrong -- but, again, it's not "theft." And it's certainly more defensible (under certain circumstances -- notably our vanishing "Fair Use" and "Public Domain" provisions) than theft.
As a final, waspish parting shot to the point that "all this theft is destroying the industry," Chernin should talk to "Frisky Dick" Richards, who plays "Violent J" in the Insane Clown Posse, which actively encourages people to download, copy, share, and, yes, even steal their work. (He might also try talking to Ron "Hitler" Barrassi of TISM about the same subject, if he thinks he can stand it. I want to sell tickets to that event!) Weirdly enough, ICP has two platinum records and a few gold records to their credit -- with NO airplay or video play -- and seem to be living proof that Chernin and all who sail with them are also committing a Slothful Induction fallacy. (In short, the evidence says Chernin et al's argument isn't true, but they believe it anyway.)
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Correct, they do want to prevent artists from reaching the people, except through them. And think of it this way: how many musicians, writers, and film makers' works haven't made it to the public, because of the enormous amount of control the studios have over the content that actually makes it out through the normal distribution channels? The 'net is not a channel for "content distribution"; its best and highest purpose is for finding one's voice. The musician, the writer, and perhaps the film maker have a chance to use the 'net to do this. If their stuff is good, people will be interested in purchasing it. I'd much rather obtain it directly from the artist than to go through the media giants. I wonder how much we as a culture are losing from the continued dominance of the mass media?
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
So now Hollywood thinks it can "win people over" to their side by evoking pity for them?! Pathetic.. truly pathetic. People will not stop boycotting / making unauthorized copies until Hollywood and the music industry learn some ethics themselves. Until then, Joe Public perceives that he is just stealing from a thief. Or phrased another way: Hollywood has no moral ground to stand on when they make these statements against so-called "piracy" by ordinary consumers.
..And then they turn around and put out propaganda like this, saying "don't attack the gatekeepers! you'll hurt the poor working-class folks in the entertainment industry!!"
Some reasons to boycott Hollywood and Big Music:
1.) They are solely responsible for the hideously unconstitutional DMCA, which tramples on some pretty basic rights--free speech and expression anyone?
2.) They'd like to ruin all useful consumer electronics and computer technology with crap like SSSCA / CBDTPA, this time taking away basic rights of property ownership ("well, you can own it.. BUT we can legally say how you're allowed to use it")
3.) They repeatedly screw over the true artists if there's a way to increase their profits. (Go look up your own examples.. there are plently out there.)
4.) They are the single largest driving force in brainwashing youth with "alternative morals." And no, this has nothing to do with the mere existence of sex and violence in film. It's about the attitudes behind the way that sex and violence are portrayed. It's about the underlying message delivered. (Example: American Pie - "you're a loser if you're still a virgin at the end of high school")
5.) They are an enormous tool of consumer whore-ism and shame-based marketing that promotes conformity. "You're no good unless you look this way / act this way / have these things / etc."
6.) They have destroyed the original institution of limited copyright for the purpose of making gargantuan amounts of money with minimal efforts.
7.) They seem to believe that they are "owed" enormous wealth because they are so special, as compared to most businesses which are subject to the Free Market and actually have to work hard to operate efficiently and turn a profit. Even bad movies tend to yield a profit margin unheard of in any other industry.
8.) Unchecked positioning in the market and monopolistic tactics that rival Microsoft's have led to disgusting price gouging of theater tickets, pay TV, music albums, and movies. All at the expense of consumers.
9.) They repeatedly have taken all available measures to maintain gatekeepers of all media, making it very difficult for independent artists and producers to succeed.
I don't know about the rest of you folk, but this kinda stuff is plenty to make me avoid the theaters and wait for the $0.99 DVD rental (on the handful of movies even *worth* seeing) Vote with your dollars, people!!
By keeping the price of DVD's reasonable (thanks to the fact they're following the sell-through model of video sales more or less pioneered by the Buena Vista Home Entertainment division of the Walt Disney Company), they've sent DVD sales literally through the roof.
DVD's could have been quite expensive initially due to the high cost of mastering the movie onto DVD disc, but now that you can master a professional-quality DVD movie on a dual-CPU Power Macintosh machine, it's small wonder why costs are relatively low.
I think the MPAA's Jack Valenti--unlike the RIAA folks--seems to a have clue about the economics of media piracy, and by pricing DVD movies at a low cost the economic incentive to do piracy is very low. If the RIAA understood the economics of media piracy they should price album-length audio CD's at US$11 per disc, which would cut down the incentive to pirate music quite dramatically.
I've stated in earlier posts that despite the knowledge that the Hollywood content package basically means that all new electronic or software technology will require the approval of a bureaucracy controlled by Hollywood to make sure "proper" DRM is implemented, that technology companies would grab desperately at any hope that Hollywood is "being reasonable" and "willing to do business".
This speech has one message. The CEO of Fox News is telling us that they bought, paid for, and 0wN Congress, and we will do what his cartel does or else.
High technology of a sort that Hollywood disapproves of will happen whether or not USA high tech companies or individual software developers, engineers, h4xx0rs, or individual electronics experimenters get to play or not.
If we want technological innovation to happen in the US instead of everywhere but the USA, somebody is going to have to organize to fight the Hollywood RIAA/MPAA cartel. Political Action Committees are the only way to do this. Neither the vendors nor anybody in the user community have stepped forward with the cash to get a mass action + lobbying organization capable of fighting this.
I no longer expect any meaningful political action about this.
Our alleged high-tech leadership is hypnotized by smoke and mirrors, believing the vague promises of the entertainment industry that if they build DRM-disabled technology, we will buy it.
If anybody's going to fight this in time to affect the next election cycle, they have to start NOW. This isn't happening. High-tech industry doesn't have the will or the vision to fight. They are hypnotized by the kind of fantasies Hollywood is supposed to spin us for entertainment purposes, and making business decisions that affect us all based on them.
Perhaps they'll understand they made a mistake when they discover that the new hot consumer gadgets are either being smuggled into the US or being built in dumbed down form for the US market by competitors working in high-tech friendly business environments and that they will either have to move their companies, close shop, or become distributors for foriegn products.
Tech Public Policy stuff