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,
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.
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)
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
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.
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
You're right: the entertainment/media industry runs on technology,and it wouldn't exist without it. What has them worked up in such a froth is that they don't control the technology like they did when media was all analog. They could charge for each copy or for monthly service.
Now that they don't control the digital technology,they are on the backs of everyone in the tech world to save their ass, um, business model. They want to continue the top-down content delivery methods that the mass media has used for the past 100 years. And, they wanna make a killing in doing so, too.
It seems that they should get to work and improve their watermarking/copy protection/whatever technologies, and buy themselves a brigade of whores (um, I meant programmers and security experts).
Seriously, though, more expansive horizons await us, when high-speed 'net access is commonplace: it will be possible for people to choose what content they want. When it becomes possible for artists to use the 'net to distribute and sell their works with a street performer business model (give some stuff away, play some more songs for dough), the entertainment companies might be out of business.
(Pardon my shouting) IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
- 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.
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
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?
...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.
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!!
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