Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood's Foundations Rest on Piracy
enrico_suave writes "Wired Magazine had an interesting perspective on how Hollywood has 'pirate' roots in its history, as well as radio, cable TV, and the music industry. Is P2P any different (except for the fact that the industry being replaced has much more money and political sway than ever before)?"
Where do you think the term copy-right came from anyway?
Don't have to pay for the stories if no longer copyrighted.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
From the article:
But because patents granted their holders a truly "limited" monopoly of just 17 years (at that time), the patents had expired by the time enough federal marshals appeared. A new industry had been founded, in part from the piracy of Edison's creative property.
In the words of the article, is there a distinction between Copyright and Patent? I was under the impression patents were for ideas of inventions, and copyrights a wann-be patent for creative works. In any case, it's interesting in a sad way how the movie industry took off initially by infringing on Edison's patent, then grew more when the patent expired after a reasonable period of 17 years. Yet in the past couple of decades, the same people who made their fortune because a patent expired are trying to extend copyrights for generations!
There was a tradition in the radio business of the 1930's of taking shows of other stations far away and broadcasting them as your own.
So, P2P networks, according to this, will cause another round of copyright law to be written and P2P networks will have to pay some set fee as dictated by congress for those "publishing" works. That seems to be the pattern over time for content broadcasting.
No wonder the RIAA wants to prosecute under existing laws, the pattern of new copyright law for disruptive technologies appears to favor the new technologies over the existing system. This would mean the end for the RIAA
So, someone, somewhere (gee, didn't this already occur in Russia) should set up a "for pay" P2P network with some nominal fee, and start paying to the RIAA. Send them checks. Similar to the broadcast license now charged for any restaurant etc to replay music publicly. The RIAA will surely come down on them, but if the population is large enough, new copyright laws will be written, and viola - effectively no more RIAA.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
as the term for copyright theft was coined a long time ago...
1930s Newspaper advertisement
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
"Cable TV, too: When entrepreneurs first started installing cable in 1948, most refused to pay the networks for the content that they hijacked and delivered to their customers - even though they were basically selling access to otherwise free television broadcasts. Cable companies were thus Napsterizing broadcasters' content, but more egregiously than anything Napster ever did - Napster never charged for the content it enabled others to give away."
I know this a bit offtopic, but does anyone know a good site that could sort of present the whole history of the cable industry. I thought it didn't start up until the 1970's, but maybe I'm wrong. Have been before, will be again.
Thanks In Advance...
Kev
"Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"-Pink Floyd
Downloading copyrighted material is only theft if the license precludes you from doing so. Copyright establishes ownership. The owner can grant a public license for his work without relinquishing ownership.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
Free association time: my favorite crime movie is The Long Good Friday. Which also employed real gangsters as extras. One of whom saw Bob Hoskins (playing the crime lord) yelling at a subordinate. He took Hoskins aside, and told him, "You don't need to yell. He knows who you are."
There is a failure in your analogy.
A closer one would be if I watch the mechanic fix my car, then fix other people's cars with that information, depriving the mechanic of the opportunity to fix their cars for a fee.
This one fails as well, but it illustrates that the problem is in the fact that digital music can be copied without incurring manufacturing costs, which wrecks the music industry's business model.
I don't know what the answer is, but draconian copy controls seem to be failing. (Witness; I watch my DVDs on my GNU/Linux system without a "legal" CSS key.)
-Peter
Dang... wish I'd saved the whole thing though; the original osopinion.com website had long since morphed into something else. Maybe I oughta chuff up a resume' and call Wired? Nah.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
For a while I have been arguing that the debate should not be framed in the "innovator versus freeloader" view but in a "constitutional rights and individual property rights versus expansive intellectual property" view.
Most Americans do not accept the idea that you have a right to give away a copy of a song to anyone who wants it. While we hear constantly about those numbers that "40% of internet users said they saw nothing wrong with pirating music" we cannot go by that. Americans are just like any other people; when we think we can get away with something that doesn't seem to directly hurt someone we do it. Downloading bootlegs doesn't seem to hurt anyone, but it can.
If I had bootlegged the entire new Android Lust album instead of buying it on iTunes I would have not sent the chick behind AL any money. iTunes allowed me to send her maybe $2 for the album which I paid $10, probably a good $5 less than what I would have paid for a CD copy.
We need to stress to the government that iTunes, not more legislation, is the key to getting the system working. We need to show them that bands like Metallica refuse to do their part because they want an all or nothing. Buy 20-30 songs on iTunes and you give Apple more ammo to counter the claims that piracy has no solution. They can just shrug in front of Congress and say "it's not our side, the legal downloading side, that has dropped the ball. They refuse to let people buy their tracks one by one because they want them to buy them all or nothing."
There will always be politicians who will rail against piracy and ignore iTunes and other legal services, but many politicians will just look at these industries and say "the mechanisms are in place, why aren't you being a team player, why are you coming to us for help when there are companies dying to make the market work for you?" Politicans tend to be lazy, just look at how many Senate votes that John Kerry has missed in the past 12 years. Something like 1000 or more a year according to Fox News.
We can appeal to the public by pointing out the supremacy of the 1st amendment over Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The first amendment was ratified later so it supercedes everything in the original constitution, just as all parts of the constitution must be read in the context of the Bill of Rights.
We should also point out how anti-backup provisions and attitudes like Jack Valenti's "if you want a backup, buy another copy" are against common sense, American tradition and capitalist principles. I have yet to read of a prominent capitalist theorist who would support the DMCA. Rand, Ricardo, Hayek and Smith are probably spinning in their graves over the DMCA and similar "seller protection legislation."
The hollywood position is built on pure, unprincipled greed. Defeating it only means that we need to be consistant and show the public where the law is going to start biting them in the ass if they don't care now.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
One thing that this article doesn't touch on is that early Hollywood (and radio) was filled with people copying each other's works, and in a lot of cases the result of copying and reworking old material resulted in a richer cultural landscape than would have otherwise occurred.
Look at how many classic songs of the 30s, 40s and 50s there are whose canonical popular version wasn't the original, or even created with the approval of the original artist. Similarly, what a loss to cinema it would have been if Stoker's estate had been able to crush Nosferatu with lawsuits... if nothing else, we would never have had Shadow of the Vampire. Most people don't listen to Fred Astaire's old singing, but everyone knows Taco. And the Pet Shop Boys' "It's a Sin" was originally an Elvis track. That's not saying that Taco and the Pet Shop Boys didn't get the rights first (I have no idea), but that it's that kind of thing that has resulted in a richer world.
Aww... I was there with you until Family Guy. They're coming up with a new 3-year contract based on their phenomenal DVD sales.
That'a also part of the equation. If there are no sales, there's no way to tell if a franchise is worth bothering with. Family Guy was cancelled and then proved itself on the shelf, so it's coming back, no thanks to you...
"A closer one would be if I watch the mechanic fix my car, then fix other people's cars with that information, depriving the mechanic of the opportunity to fix their cars for a fee."
Actually I think an even better example would be if you could magically touch your mechanics head and know everything that your mechanic knows and has spent years learning and paying for (education). Then used that knowledge, fixed other people cars and refused to kick him back a few cents even though he told you that it will cost you to do the magic head touch procedure.
DVD's on linux is a fair use issue, not a theft issue, not even close.
Not really. Any rip of a movie is going to be lower quality than the original. Especially if it's a cam of a new movie, that is utter shit quality.
Repeal the DMCA!
Change with the times! Hollywood must find a way to use technology to make money. Otherwise, they will spend more than ever lost on piracy try to protect their outdated business models. Same for the music industry... Digital formats are here to stay, so find a way to alter the model and keep on making your money!
I guess the problem with the above suggestion is that there are a few people at the top that may lose a fraction of their power... Too bad they are will to risk millions, and piss of the customer base over a pride issue...
--Ryan
The whole car-mechanic metaphor is not apt. The whole music industry in so insane,as to have no really good durable product analogies.
The music industry invented the concept of performance rights (that (P) you see on CDs) so that they could control the particular sound recording under copyright rules in much the same way as the artist.
I ask why in the Book publishing world we do not have an equivalent to (p), but instead the author licenses the rights to publish a work to a publisher, while still maintaining copyright. The (p) is a bad thing, especially when you consider that the artist actually paid to record the music company's copyrighed work, i.e., that particular (p) recording. Further consider that the artist pays to market the music industry's work, to manufacture it on CD, and such.
The music industry has far fewer costs associated with what is distributed than does a book publisher, yet charges in the same price, keeping the white meat, and passing the costs on to the artist.
Is this OK?
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
But now the cat's out of the bag and, well, maybe it is piracy. But piracy is now good! After all, it helped build Hollywood!
It's just amazing the twists and turns of logic that P2P file thieves will use to justify their theft. In truth, they are people who do not respect property ownership at all, yet would probably scream if someone stole some of their own property. These same people want to be paid for their work, but refuse to understand that other people like to be paid also. Just amazing.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Disney themselves made a mint by plundering the public domain (Snow White, Pinnochio, etc).
What's wrong with that? Nothing. It's public domain, and it is ripe for the plundering. Since these things are public domain, there is nothing to stop anyone from cashing in either (see the knock-off "Pocahontas" videos that others made came out in the wake of that Disney movie). I just see nothing wrong with this.
What is more worrisome is when Disney plunders other's non-public properties, like when "The Lion King" ripped off the "Kimba the White Lion" show.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The internet is meant to be a vast distributed network of independent nodes, each interacting with each other. It is a bit like how the neurons in your brain are wired. This way, the internet really becomes a tool of the individual as opposed to a tool of an institution.
[
- Read More
]The MPIAA's attempt to end P2P is simply luddite. The Film Industry has greatly benefitted from the digital revolution. I have seen quite a few films where 90% of the scenes use CGI.
[
- Read More
]The MPIAA can't stop the internet's true potential from being realised. Internet is the largest juggernaut that exists right now in the world. The MPIAA is but an ant fighting against a glacier. There's no question as to who will win.
[
- Read More
]Nothing to see here
I think that a lot of this "piracy" business that the MPAA and RIAA is a load of crap. For example, one of the loudest voices against Napster (before the became "legit") was Metallica. In one of the tape inserts for one of their albums (I forget which one), they claim outright that they used to trade tapes back and forth and copy them all the time before they made it big. So, it is OK when they commited piracy, but it isn't now when they are a target of it?
I'm glad their last album sucked....
Quoted relevant text:
"Now for the real bemusing part... perhaps the MPAA should look at their own history before they point their finger at the DeCSS "pirates" they seek to subdue: If you look back to the history of filmmaking, back when the motion pictures were first invented, you'll find Thomas Edison's monopoly in New York City. His company held an exclusive and tight stranglehold over all film projectors, film, movie rights, and nearly anything associated with motion pictures. If you wanted to make a movie, you paid an exorbitant number of fees to rent the cameras, rent the scenery provided only by Edison, and even to rent the film (yes, Rent - you never actually owned it, even after it was developed.) Anyone caught trying to make their own movies or to show them without the blessing of Edison and Co. were buried in lawsuits, or worse. A small group of filmmakers decided to revolt, proclaiming that one should be free to create and show films without kow-towing to some huge conglomeration. To escape Edison and Co., they moved everything they had to a far-away place...a small town known as Los Angeles, California. From there, these artistic rebels created films - films that created the largest dominant force of culture on Earth, all because they wanted to make films without a corporate stranglehold. It's an utter pity, and a show of sheer hypocrisy by the MPAA, that the artistic descendants of those early pioneers have decided today to resurrect and bow down before the very thing their forebears hated the most."
Turned out that DiVX eventually made me wrong on some of the article, but otherwise it's cool that the rest of it has held up after all this time :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The copyright for the Arabian Nights did not "run out", as the stories were written long before copyright existed.
Ok, but how about... The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Too old?
Cinderella? Too old?
Snow White and the Seven Dwarves? Too old?
The Little Mermaid? Too old?
Beauty and the Beast? Too old?
Pocahontas? Too old?
I could go on, but I think you get my point. I just relish the irony that Disney can't fathom the thought of someone else using their IP to possibly make a buck...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
>> California was remote enough from Edison's reach that filmmakers like Fox and Paramount could move there and, without fear of the law, pirate his inventions
>Yes, ok. Who did that with p2p?
Vanuatu was remote enough from Eisner's reach that software makers like Sharman could incorporate there and, without fear of the law, pirate his works.
Was p2p itself founded on illegally distributed copyrighted materials?
Yes. It would not have attained a critical mass without infringing copyright in the works that were crossing the network. Look at how many users Napster (pre-Roxio) lost when it switched in to an opt-in system for songwriters and recording artists (around beta 10 IIRC).
"p2p" is not the same thing as "illegally copying copyrighted materials over a p2p network".
When expanded "Pirate to Pirate", where "pirate" in turn expands to "an infringer of a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret", P2P does indeed stand for unlawful file-sharing.
From the article: But when the station plays a record, it is not only performing a copy of the composer's work. The station is also performing a copy of the recording artist's work. It's one thing to air a recording of "Happy Birthday" by the local children's choir; it's quite another to air a recording of it by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett.
This paragraph doesn't make sense. The local children's choir, the Rolling Stones and Lyle Lovett would all qualify as recording artists, in this case. How are the latter "quite another" thing?
The implication seems to be that the children's choir is expected to be stepped on. That's depressing.
This is not my sig.
I believe the editing is usually done with digital scans now, and then the actual analog film is put together when they know what bits they want to use.
It's worth nothing that when the story about the digital vs. analog Episode II screenings came up last year on slashdot, there was a very different story. I wish I had the link.
Basically they showed the two pictures side by side. The one picture shook a little at the beginning, and everyone was like "ahh, that's analog". And most of them said it looked better.
Turns out someone just bumped the digital projector. And that the digital projection looked better, not least of which because it didn't darken towards the edges, like analog projection.
Also digital cameras (in the 20 megapixel range) are now officially surpassing analog 35 mm quality. Ask a photo geek. They'll tell you the same thing.
Analog has resolution problems too. It's not like it's vector based or something. It's a chemical processed with resolution limits. Take a look at your average newspaper photo...it's analog, but low-res.
OK, so points back on for netflix - still, don't you agree that netflix implies a slightly longer planning horizon than the blockbuster's down the street? As for the couple of hours download time over DSL - sure, but that's today (and a word to the wise: usenet binaries groups hosted by your provider. nuff said.).
The irony here is that once somebody figures out how to make money off this, the MPAA will probably subsidize a ten mbit connection into your household so that you can legally download (well... stream anyway) video on demand... at 4 dollars a movie (but this week only, watch any three Simpsons episodes for 99 cents. That's right. Just 99 cents. D'Oh!).
If you want to see "real" piracy in action, i invite you to visit Istambul - you don't rent anything, you just wander down to the street right in front of your place and buy dodgy VCDs for two bucks from some guy with a folding table (amazing selection - you have to see it to believe it). Heck, you can even sell them back for a dollar the next day if you want (off the price of the next movie).
Before there were enough law enforcement officers in hollywood to 'enforce' the film camera patents, Edison's company did so on their own.
It was not unusual for them to hire sharp-shooters to shoot the cameras while people were filming using them. not exactly a legal practice (or safe, some people got shot when the shooters 'missed'), but nobody could really complain. Edison's company also would hire thugs to beat up camera men and seize their equipment.
thank god we're more evolved now... we just take away people's homes via the courts for patent infringement.
-ben
No matter what resolution you rise to, you will always be short of analog.
Wrong! Digital has already surpassed film.
One of the products I support is a Telecine, which converts film to video. When our high end telecine went to "2k" (2k horizontal lines of resolution, or 3096x2048) telecine operators were complaining that the video output looked grainy. That's because the resolution was high enough that they were actually seeing the grain of the film. Our current high end does 2k in realtime (30fps) and 4k at 7.5fps. IMNSHO film is dead, it's just a matter of time before the artists realize this.
FYI, 1080p HDTV should be roughly equivalent resolution to average quality film. That's what's typically used for digital cinematography today. I've heard rumors of 2k cameras, but I don't know if someone's actually selling them, or if they're just in developement.
Is the original analog film actual used to create the final cut (either physically or be analog copying) or is the entire process digitised
Depends. For some films it may only get digitized when they want to release it on VHS/DVD. For others, like LotR, post-production is almost entirely digital. I don't know about you, but I thought LotR looked pretty good, even on a big screen.
Disclaimer: I am not an engineer, and this is not necessarily the Official Party Line, but it is my opinion as a repair center tech for Thomson, which owns Technicolor and Grass Valley Group, so I'm not totally talking out of my ass here.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.