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'."
"..as long as it keeps making my industry billions on overpriced plastic."
Trolling is a art,
Tech companies should develop blazing fast technologies complete with super-high quality delivery of content.
Media companies should distribute their media in a format that can be thoroughly raped by users. Er, I mean a completely open format so that we may take advantage of the quality of the media format....
Right.
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
Star Wars Juice Box: $.70
Star Wars Fruit Snacks: $.62
Star Wars Images on Various Sandwich Ingrediens: $.90
Star Wars Lunch Pail: $15.99
There are some things that money can't buy. Imagery from a franchise isn't one of them.
Has George Lucas done anything else other than American Graffiti? The name sounds familiar but I can't place my finger on it. Did he do ET or Indiana Jones or am I thinking of another person? Damn, so close.. right on the tip of my mind. Spider-man?
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.
hairy ass. He did offer this gem:
Still, Lucas said that entertainers themselves, not the big media companies, stand to lose the most if more content is available for free on the Internet. "Corporations are like cockroaches. They'll survive everything," Lucas said.
How true.
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?
Look at who we are talking about here! That's right, FOX! The network that cancels every show that the majority of technical people enjoy, to play yet another show that no one cares about.
I say that we should not even consider working together with them until they get their act together! This means bringing back Family Guy and Futurama and moving them to a decent time slot. It also means no pre-empting of them for any reason including football: There are sports channels for that! And movies: There are movie channels for that.
Once they have complied we will talk. Of course the best for both industries would be streaming on-demand video over the internet, but that will never happen...
Lucas went on to say that [cprt violations => less money =>] wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies
... why, yes, I agree. Only disagree on the sign of \Delta_Q .
less money => major impact on quality of movies
since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.
and "design by commity" them to death.
Working for necessity's mother.
It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas
The closest I can find is exenterate:
To remove surgically all the organs and other contents of a body cavity, usually to minimize the spread of cancer
Seems like an extreme way of making a point, but you know George Lucas, never one for subtlety.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
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...
This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.
Yeah, and Michelangelo threw buckets of dirt and paint at an easel just so he could have enough money to make real art.
Saying that there won't be film of merit or quality without there first being movies of flashy repetitive garbage sounds like a pathetic attempt to make people believe the shit he's shoveling.
Media companies want to deliver more movies etc. online, which will foster the growth of broadband.
Broadband ISP's want to cap downloads or charge more for "bandwidth hogs".
I don't think this is going to work out. ;)
assert(birth_date<time-86400)
First, how can Mr. Chernin have time to be the CEO of Fox AND the COO of News Corp.??? He is doing an injustice to both of those organizations since there is NO WAY he can give his all to either of those organizations will doing (and probably not doing it well) the duties of both of those positions.
Second, HOW MUCH MONEY IS THIS GUY MAKING?? He is probably making a fortune to state the obvious!!! Millions of dollars have already been spent (and are being spent right now) on trying to stop pirating and theft of digital material. Theft prevention is a business that has been going on since the days of Kings
Oh, I get it
Hmmmm
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!) showing up to say 'there is no free lunch'.
Although, with an estimated wealth of $2.5 billion, it's easy to forget that a "movie lunch" costs regular people at least $10 each these days, before the popcorn.
Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so. This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.
Excuse me while I shed a few tears for the poor movie industry. Waterworld spent hundreds of millions and it was just an OK (not to mention unprofitable) movie. Actors and puppets are much more realistic and engaging and inexpensive than computer animation, and make for a better movie, but that doesn't stop Lucas from overspending on CG. And since when do artsy movies require any sort of high budget, compared to the summer blockbusters? Oh well, we only made $300 million on this blockbuster, instead of $305 million on the last one, so we can't afford to make the $5 million "Painting for Harold" sequel.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Okay, try posting a sign on your window that says, "Do Not Break This Window". Is this going to A) Give the Window a Longer life or B) Catch the Attention of those that like breaking windows. I'm sure we've all heard this little theory before.
On to the point (in relation to this story):
I rent and buy DVDs, I don't even think about it. I play them on my PC, my laptop, my PS2, my DVD player. It's great, I like it and DVDs are quite reasonably priced.
Now comes DRM - in whatever form they are planning. Will I have to call in and register my DVD? Will I need to have a phone or network cable attached to the player of the future? Are restrictions going to be inserted on to my PC? Is my old non-DRM box going to find itself instantly outdated and unable to play the latest movie or whatever?
All of a sudden I'm not a happy-go-lucky watcher of TV, and consumer of media. I'm feeling a little under appreciated, plus all of a sudden all of these restrictions are in my face. I can't just scoot out and pick up a DVD or record a TV program for viewing later.
So now I have to figure out, "How can my PC or media unit view these new movies?" or "How can I make my PVR record this show?" I didn't care before, but now I'm going to have to go and take a look. While I'm figuring this out illegal content may also be discovered (boot legged movies side by side with info on getting around DRM). Next thing you know I have the latest warez for viewing moviez on my PC. All because you wanted to make sure you've squeezed every last dime from everyone's pockets. The people who were copying before are still copying now. Formerly loyal customers are now pissed off pirates.
I'd been ignoring the window, happily walking by it - then you had to go and put a damn sign up and eventually it became time to break it!
Piracy in all its forms is not a technical problem, but a social problem.
... in excess of 20 years.
... most people's time is more valuable to them than the money saved infringing on the copyright and burning a copy of the DVD ... despite the existence of tools that make doing so easy, even trivial, on just about every platform.
... most people find the hassle of ripping, copying, and downloading the one or two good songs off an otherwise crappy CD, and the time spent doing so, well offset by the savings and satisfaction of not being suckered into paying full price for a disc full of crap, merely for the privelege of listening to one or two decent songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.
... a boycott alone is a lonely thing indeed).
Absolutely right.
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.
People have had, to their perceptions at least, the ability to make "perfect" copies of music and video for a very long time
Yes, the audio and videophile will quickly point out the problems with generational loss on both cassette tape and VHS/Hi8, but to the average person who wants to build up a video library of Seinfeld and Friends episodes, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation videos are perfectly fine (and no, sorry, macrovision is no barrier even for the unititiated. Thank you for playing).
Yet Hollywood makes millions on VHS tapes, and millions more on DVDs that are, I must admit despite my boycott, reasonably priced. Why? Because the hassle factor of burning a copied DVD outweights the pricetag
Music, on the other hand, is a different story. The CDs cost as much or more than the DVDs, with vastly less value and content. The hassle factor of copying a good CD is such that a good CD is more likely to be purchased than copied, at least by those who can reasonably afford the purchase, but so much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes, and the remaining tracks utter crap (even by their low standards). The result
Hollywood, for all of its evil and stupidity on the DRM front, at least understands that offering their customers added value gets them to go out and buy DVDs in droves (much as I wish it were otherwise
All of which underscores that, not only will Palladium and DRM wreck the home tech market, much as copy protection killed consumer DAT and cost the home electronics industry a big boom they would have otherwise seen, but, in the end, it won't work anyway.
The problem is a social problem, but that social problem includes not just copyright infringers who are doing something they shouldn't, but also the purveyors of shoddy product that don't want to be forced to give their customers better value or better product, who have already been convicted of price fixing, payola, and other cartel behaviors more than once, producers who are arguably more responsible for the current p2p file trading phenominon than anyone else.
There will always be someone who wants to get the new movie release beforehand, who doesn't mind spending the hours online downloading the latest spiderman cam or LOTR dvd rip, but these people have always existed, will always exist, and don't impact anyone's bottom line appreciably. It is the rest of us, who are used to buying and copying our own stuff (for backup, for ease of use, to listen to in the car, on the boat, in the plane, etc.) who will stop buying this crap if it means ubuiquitous surveillance of our listening habits, and cripping our favorite, expensive toys, that they should worry about. We're the ones who are going to stop buying this stuff if Hollywood and the RIAA get their way, and that's a market downturn they aren't likely to recover from.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Second point: we're getting this from a guy whose career is based on an idea ripped from Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress?" For those who have seen it, but don't see the Star Wars resemblance, I invite you to read Lucas's original 13 page treatment. The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but the events are Kurosawa's. I don't begrudge the man making a successful adaptation of someone else's material. Furthermore, he's admitted the influence, and even funded some of Kurosawa's later projects. Still, you'd think this would be a guy who would champion fair use. Instead, we get this lecture? Feh.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
So far, large enough portions of the public have wanted things like VCRs, PVRs, mp3 players, and CD copiers that I don't see why the technology industry has any reason to 'work together' with media. In fact, because of how media is distributed, through technologically savvy means, the media should, in theory, be more inclined to kiss ass to the tech people.
Tech leads to the development of more tech, while media seems to actively work against such. This is not a good deal.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
>> Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so.
Yeah!! Look what the internet did to the porn industry!
Seriously.. You'd think Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the XXX industry. Look how mainstream it became via the internet. Hard to understand why they don't see it as the powerful distrobution vehicle it could be.
I mean if you distributed 100% more copies of , why fight so hard because 5% of them are pirated? Mo money, mo money mo money. You don't see vivid video fighting to shut down distribution of their films.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Another greedy businessman encouraging businesses to collude. So much for anti-trust laws.
How ya like dat?
So media has been promoting and distributing it's goods without the use of technology?
I'm not saying that media is "cutting-edge" but it's not like media has shunned technology.
Look at DVDs, CDs, Television, Ditigal Television, Radio, Internet Radio (Simulcast), Alternative Sound Channels (big in bi-lingual areas), Flat-screen televisions, Portable CD players, Portable Cassette players, MIDI, Eight-Track Cassettes, Vinly Records, Motion picture cameras, 8mm Movie Cameras, 35mm Camera, Photography, Solid-state radios, Vacuum-tube radios, E-books, Online News Centers, API-wire, and Prinitng presses. (I know I've missed many)
Mabye I have a bit broader definition of technology and media, but you can argue that media didn't exist without technology, unless you consider hand-copied manuscripts and books to be the central core of all media.
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...
hell no, they should fight it out!!!!
...Hi I'm a media distribution company who relies on the good grace of the media creation companies. I'd like to go on record as saying I think the media creation people are lame and a pain in our ass, screw those guys.....
.. god this spin makes me dizzy.
Too bad it didn't go something like this:
well it's good to know that they'll be working together from now on...they musty be good guys right?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Forcing me to re-buy The White Album, 4 more times, in 4 new formats, isn't why we have copyrights and patents. It was constructed as a careful use of a necessary evil (state granted monopoly) for a limited time (17 years), in order to make sure the authors had sufficient incentive to put works into the public domain. (Happened at the end of the time period).
Now the slackers in Congress have perverted the original design to provide for Government enforced monopolies on ideas. This can not stand, in the long run.
DRM is evil, there is no practical purpose for it.
--Mike--
They can say that, and at the same time stiff the artists like Stan Lee by claiming that they make no profit.
Or they lobby for copyright extension after extension so they can continue selling goods with no further IP investment.
Sounds to me like they're saying that consumers can't have a free lunch, only corporate media.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
the *consumer* need to "work together." One of the ways this can be accomplished is through a free market. It's not the best imaginable system. It's adversariale to an extent and definately a bit on the tempestuous side now and again. . . like now.
.there's no such thing as a free lunch. I'll accept that statement for the sake of argument. It cuts *both ways* Georgie boy. You have to earn your lunch. Your costomer buys it for you, in exchange for goods and services.
.words.
But. .
The "consumer's" money belongs to the consumer. It isn't yours. You don't "deserve" it. You have to earn it under true contractual terms wherein both sides of the contract receive fair and equitable exchange for freely voluntary participation in the deal.
This means that to get the consumer's money you have to offer them what they want, when they want it, how they want it and at a *price* they are fully, freely and happily willing to pay.
If it is not done this way then in the multi-hundred year history of contract the deal *isn't legitimately valid.*
The "cooperation of media and tech" is nothing more and nothing less than a cabal formed against the ultimate source of "lunch" and business power. . . your customers ( do you remember that word? Have you looked it up in a dictionary lately? It's a very important word Georgie boy).
As a "consumer" all I can say to this is " Stick it up your Star Wars whoring butt George."
I play musical instruments, as do many of my friends. I can write my own songs. I can download Dumas ( where you ripped off all your "ideas" anyway. Can you say "Three Musketeers in Space"? I KNEW you could Georgie boy, in fact, you already did, didn't you?) from Project Guttenburg and get hundreds of hours of superior entertainment for free in a format you can't control. .
The "media industry" isn't the only source of "content" in the world.
Watch yourselves carefully or you just might end up at the soup kitchen begging for a "free lunch."
KFG
"If hundreds of thousands of dresses were stolen from Wal-Mart, the police would assemble a task force that would have Winona Ryder shaking in her boots," Chernin said. "
These are NOT dresses we are stealing. They are ugly, torn and patched pieces of fabric that hardly resemble the original dress. Think Attack of the Clones on the big screen vs. Attack of the Clones recorded by some dope with a camcorder on his shoulder, and then uploaded to Kazaa. Who are they trying to kid? And at least the RIAA is actually losing money(although they are wrong about why it continues to happen). Motion picture studios continue to make more and more money, even though it is obvious that these crappy cam movies are easily downloaded.
Oh, dear God, I can only hope so. The brief heyday of director-centric blockbusters in the 1960s and '70s -- Jaws, Apocalypse Now, Kubrick's best works, and, yes, even Star Wars -- has simply given way to overhyped, overextended special effects larded with committee-designed dialogue and focus-tested credit crawls. Am I supposed to believe that companies choosing to spend billions of dollars less on overplotted tripe like Clone Wars is a bad thing? Perhaps, if the financial stakes weren't so high for the studios and directors, they'd be willing to try riskier experiments in film.
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
No, SpaceBalls was that great Mel Brooks movie from a few years back. A great movie by a talented director.
Lucas did that lame parody of SpaceBalls, you know, that kids' movie with the stupid floppy-eared CGI character. There was a big line of knockoff sequels that ended with a movie about furry little teddy bears or some shit.
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.
Fox addresses henhouse: "If we cooperate, we can process many more chicken-nuggets much more efficiently."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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)
What he means is "Lets find a way to cram DRM into every consumer device we can. That will lead to more profits for both High Tech and Entertainment".
Where's the consumer advocate saying "Why should I spend more money to get less?" Where is the consumer advocate saying "what is the future of the PC if PC's are encumbered by DRM hardware and software? What is the future of Linux and future generations of software if it is illegal to have software without DRM restrictions in it.
Nowhere because clowns like this guy don't care about anything but more profit for themselves and their shareholders. That's okay. But why does the FBI have to be the enforcement arm of the media conglomerates?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Oh, so we are supposed to feel pity that a giant media conglomerate which has pushed independant artist so far off the scope that they are now considered "fringe elements" has lost their artifical means of sustaning a monopoly by producing other people's content in a form that is not easily distributed, copied, or transfered without degradation in quality.
Damn those pesky technology people. If only they would cooperate with media we could have a world safe from pirating. A world where all content was digitally watermarked by it's coporate owner, where strong encryption hampered any means to use or distribute it without royalty, where media that was not guarded would be automatically destroyed if it slightly resembled copyrighted material (like media containing text, graphics, or video).
First of all, it will be a cold day in hell before I take any advice from that Right Wing propaganda maker. Second George Lucas jumped the shark a long time ago and I could care less about what he thinks. This is a guy who would literally replace every actor in his film with CG actors if he could. Again no thanks.
Here's my advice to Big Media. Adapt or Die. Stop trying to crush my rights for fair use. Stop using your monopoly power to keep prices of CD's artificially high. And lastly stop trying to push new formats which make using media on my existing electronics worthless.
Work with the consumer not against them, and stop acting like your at war by pressuring congress to pass laws which enable you to become rogue vigilantes.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Mafia Don Anthony Geletto said that Local and Federal Police Authorities should work more closely with the Mob.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries."
Meaning "we should work together AGAINST the interests of customers."
Read as "We're too incopetent to implement a working DRM system ourselves, so we're asking the tech industry to join us in our crusade against our customers. I mean, they're all stealing, file-sharing criminals! They should be flushed out from their basements, full of computers with gigabytes of illegal high quality content like, uh, Britney Spears, with napalm! Your hear me!? NAPALM!!!! *spit flying* You know the smell of napalm and burned flesh? It's the smell of victory! And if they survive the napalm, they should be executed on the spot! *more ranting while drooling heavily*".
But they should use the technology that is already available to them to hedge the piracy of movies and TV shows.
For example, why doesn't FOX/CBS/(Insert network here) provide their shows online after the first airing on TV? Put some commercials in there to cover the costs and let people stream them. Or you can just let them download them and share them, who cares, you made money by leaving the commercials in, or providing internet-only commercials to your customers. And same goes for movies, say let people download them after the video is released with extra commercials in there or something.
I know that I would love to go to fox.com and download the Futurama I missed rather than lurking around on IRC for a week trying to download it, and especially in the case of movies... Commercials? Hey, if they can provide me with that content, I can deal with the commercials, and if I like the movie, I'll go buy the DVD anyway.
Just a thought, although this would piss off the Blockbusters of the world, but it's all about dealing with the changes, not about preventing them...
Troy
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.
Okay, then I'd like to offer a compromise proposal.
Instead of Tech putting in DRM for Media, how about Tech including little stickers that say "Don't steal the music."
(these stickers can be conveniently affixed to the inside of the device so that they are easily seen by anyone who takes the device apart.)
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Cartoon Network has Futurama now. No doubt it will become the anchor of Adult Swim, which is expanding into M-Th as well. So, get some basic cable.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
The tech industry has handed these people the biggest market opportunity in decates and all they do is bitch & moan and worry about theft. Talk about an obsession. They have abused technology to stop legitimately purchased DVDs bought in one area from playing in another, for no reason other than exercising a control over consumers that they have no natural right to exercise. I don't know anyone who downloads movies online, I know plenty of meople who have collections of hundreds of DVDs.
If a store owner worried about shoplifting tried to get a law passed where everyone must carry scanners around and wear manacles that would lock and prevent us moving whenever the scanners think there is a problem with stolen goods(and we have to foot the bill). We'd think they were crazy, but this is exactly what the entertainment industry wants to do with our computers.
When are we going to start ignoring these windbags in the entertainment industry bleating about their stolen movies? They have record box office sales and are reaping the rich rewards of technical innovation, now they want to kill the goose that produced their golden egg.
Movies & music and the systems used to distribute and sell them are not natural systems, they are artificial systems WE choose to live by. A performer used to have to perform live for his pay, there was no recording. An artist used to have to stand on stage every night and work to collect his cash. Now thanks to technology they can perform once and release a product, but it's an artificial system enabled by technology. That technology risks undermining this system is not a reason to undermine technical innovation. The people who create entertainment products must adapt to the new environment. They have no natural right to sell their products produced once and mass produced forever for very little cost. It is an ARTIFICIAL right thet we grant them in law. It's time this was made clear. These rights they claim are artificial rights in an unnatural technical environment granted to them by the people they increasingly try to control.
...says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries.
Too bad it doesn't say "in the best interests of consumers"
Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so.
Great! Why don't you cut the $50M special effects budget in half and use some of the savings on a decent script and a good director?
This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.
Studiotalk translation:
"popcorn movies" == Mindless garbage with no story, poor acting, and lots of big explosions.
"artsy films" == Anything with a plot.
Too bad that 95% of the films to come out of Hollywood fall into the "popcorn movies" category.
Here's a clue for the studios and the MPAA: make some decent material that I would be willing to spend $20 on to buy the DVD.
I doubt very much that LoTR DVD sales will be disappointing, and I bet that there will be a lot of piracy of "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" DivX copies on P2P. Simple reason: people don't like to pay good money for garbage. Either make movies worth the sticker price, or lower the sticker price.
Why do we listen to these cultural squatters, who sit on our culture and claim they have a right to take it?
Who listens to these speculators, who hoard cultural creations hoping that someday they might win it big?
Who pays attention to these meglomaniacs, who try to perpetually hold our heritage hostage and control every use and access.
Who set up the modern intellectual feudalism, where you have kings, dukes, and other nobility fighting over fiefdoms of our intellectual and cultural landscape. Nobility who rape the peasants who are subject to their idiosyncratic and meglomaniac wills
Who are these people who claim that every work that is not created by them is a 'shallow reinterpreation' that should be burned, yet the nobility's creations are invariably unique and special.
If they shall call me a thief, pirate, and shoplifter.. Well, what shall these men and women be called?
I'll take rivalry, thanks.
sulli
RTFJ.
sucked. If I want to watch a DVD on a big LCD projector I can do that in the office, thanks.
sulli
RTFJ.
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!!
It seems as if these criminals went there. Of course lots of people download bootleg stuff, but for crying out loud, it's the same people who were copying the CD's to tape before. You cannot stop it, only go with the flow. But they will try and try until it becomes worldwide law and we're all forced to buy fuckshit like Britney Spears because only empty headed souless creeps like that can work with the industry on a permanent basis.
So in case you wankers from the big companies actually send your slaves to read this forum: I haven't bought a CD in about two years and will not do so in the future either. You can rot in hell you scum.
"media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries."
I've got this silly idea: Why don't they team up and work together in the best interests of their customers instead? Or am I being too capitalistic again?
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
Yeah!! Look what the internet did to the porn industry!
Seriously.. You'd think Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the XXX industry. Look how mainstream it became via the internet. Hard to understand why they don't see it as the powerful distrobution vehicle it could be.
I mean if you distributed 100% more copies of , why fight so hard because 5% of them are pirated? Mo money, mo money mo money. You don't see vivid video fighting to shut down distribution of their films.
Most of it is stolen from each other, or other places.
Don't belive me check out those so called sites that use "Adult varification." 99% of their anime stuff they provide is stolen.
Uh and the PROBLEM IS???
Porn is profitable by ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. There are laws requiring Adult Verification (the first piece of the profit margin which encourages production) and once inside the sites if you see something stolen (the second part of the profit margin - near free supply) from somebody else you still are getting your bucks worth.
Hell, I could take naked pictures of myself and so long as it doesn't hurt my steady job, it becomes easy money. To quoth the comedian, "Just strap a web cam to your dildo and BANG! You're an international internet porn star." Very low cost of entry (joke intended) and a steady churn of new images available.
Imagine the movie industry realizing that cable TV can bring in customers and they profit well to boot! NAPSTER (before it got RIAA-ASSRAPED) was the best thing to hit the CD industry. The RIAA IS CHOCK FULL OF ABSOLUTE MORONS! If I don't hear the songs I don't buy the songs. NAPSTER was akin to radio music broadcasts BUT the user gets to choose what they listen to.
Since I've pretty much boycotted the RIAA (and CD buying) COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF THE RIAA's ACTIONS they haven't gotten more than $10 from me in the past 2 years. That's ALL THEIR FAULT. Piracy in this case was their best promotion method and it was FREE ADVERTISING. Now the RIAA wants to cram their idea of what I should buy down my throat and I vomit in their faces. Sure I still am buying things, DVDs & computer games & stuff for my home & car (about $8000 worth over the past year) but I refuse completely to fund the RIAA-ASSHOLES.
As the saying goes, "Share the wealth smartly and it will come back to you twofold."
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
>> ...much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes...songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.
Why do people continue to buy CD's by musicians they already know they don't like? If you buy a CD that's crap, why on Earth would you want to spend more money (or more time copying) the next CD by the same folks? Maybe there is just one track that will hold you interest for a day or so. So what? No one is forcing you to buy the thing? If you want it that bad, get it, but don't pretend you didn't know the other tracks were sewage.
I mean, I already know I don't like boiled cabbage, so I don't keep stocking up on cabbage just in case it starts to taste good.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The Fox News CEO is being perfectly reasonable in making this speech. They paid the price in dollars to buy Congress, and as a result, they OwN it. They are going to get the laws they want.
Nobody in either high-tech industry or the high-tech community is going to do anything about this in the only way possible, via PAC with a credible budget. Otherwise, we'd already be seeing action about this, in order to get the legal paperwork required to start a national level PAC raising money in the individual states, a PAC needs to be started NOW to have impact in the 2004 election cycle where our next President gets chosen as well as Congress.
Nobody's interested in putting up the megabuck or two money up front to get the PAC started. It's the price of freedom, and nobody is willing to pay it while the price only needs to be paid in dollars.
All this speech means is that the Hollywood cartel has declared victory and that high-tech innovation is simply moving out of America. It's the deer in the headlights thing, as was shown at a literal and physical level at the presentation described in the article at Comdex.
That speech should have resulted in a near riot, followed by top-level industry suits passing the hat to get an high-tech vendor PAC together to buy Congress out from under the Hollywood cartel, not people sitting quietly hypnotized into believing that what they are hearing is good news.
That speech isn't about working with us, it's telling us that they demand our OBEDIENCE.
Obedient people don't make cool new technology, and the only people who will be legally allowed to make new technology in the US will be those willing to be obedient to Federal laws, regulations, and committee decisions Made In Hollywood by quasi-govermental committees whose appointees will represent the content industry. These people will be willing to wait for Hollywood to give permission to work on any new concepts they come up with.
That's what the package of laws and regulations the Hollywood cartel has created translates to in plain English.
Anybody willing to try being an "obedient" technology maker is going to get hammered by foriegn competition from places that don't have the RIAA/MPAA anchor chained to their collective necks. The price of disobedience will be jail, fines, or being willing to emigrate both as indivduals and as companies.
The sheep will stick around for it and someday, will forget that there was a day when the USA was a technology leader. The cool new stuff from Apple and IBM will be coming from their facilities in Canada and the EU and Asia. I can imagine Apple HQ moving to Amsterdam quite easily for some reason. Those of us making cool new stuff will also be out of the country. Brain drain will be out of the US, not into it as it always has been. That's what being a technology client state means, and that's what Fox News is telling the high-tech leaders of America that the USA is going to become.
George Lucas seems to have forgotten that he's a suit, not an entertainer now, and he's confusing his personal interests in the current business model with those of creative artists. The entertainer has least to lose from any new business models that leverage the Internet and broadband technology instead of suppresssing them in favor of the RIAA model.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Piracy" does exactly that, in fact. Copyright violation has never been congruent with traditional definitions of piracy. Making the two terms synonymous is an egregious neologism.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Historically, radio was the means by which you could hear most of the songs on a new album before buying it. Recently, only one or two songs off each album end up getting radio airplay and the rest are a blind crap-shoot as to what you're going to get. That's what changed.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.