Slashdot Mirror
Interview with MPAA Chief Dan Glickman
farmerbuzz writes "USAToday has an interview with Dan Glickman (Jack Valenti's replacement as the CEO of the MPAA) where he announces that the MPAA will begin suing movie downloaders. An interesting point brought up in the interview: 'At the time the RIAA announced its lawsuits, it said music sales had fallen 25% over a three-year period. The MPAA is in a much different situation. Box office receipts aren't down at all -- 2003's figures were $9.5 billion, the second biggest in history.'"
I find it odd that people cite the MPAA figures for lost revenue. These figures assume that all of this media would have been purchased had they not been "stolen." IANAAccountant but I think that their figures could be reduced by a factor of a hundred to get closer to the actual losses.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
Will we totally obliterate piracy? No. But we have to make it as difficult as possible.
Suing people won't make downloading "difficult". Perhaps a bit riskier for those people in the US who happen to do so.
Regardless, I'm assuming they'll have to go to the ISPs individually with a court order for ID rather than the sweeping lawsuits the RIAA used?
Trolling is a art,
Which is it, Music or Movie Sales? And if it's Music, what do Music sales have to do with Movie downloaders?
Just out of curiosity...
CD sales went down, but how about concert revenue?
Movie box office went up, but how about DVD/VHS sales?
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)? I bet I could find a torrent of Garfield the movie if I realy wanted to.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Since they are now going to be suing their customers, i will no longer be purchasing any of their films.
I'm about ready to cancel my cable TV as well..
Will my dropping off their cutomer roles hurt them? No.. but enough others follow me..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Profits are up as a result of raising movie ticket prices to make up for losses due to piracy...
So stopping piracy will bring movie prices below $12/show right? Riiiiiiiight???
When it costs as much to see the movie in the theater as you can OWN the DVD for later on, it's a wonder they still make money at all.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
I found the real explanation here, nestled between paragraphs...
"We know there are losses. We believe we're losing $3.5 billion yearly."
...
"My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000."
Hmmmm. Ever considered that part of that mysterious 3.5 billion dollars might have gone into making this stinker?
In any case, Mr. Glickman does a wonderful job of not answering the question at all, and by pulling a random number out of the air.
The RIAA hasn't lost 25% of their sales.
Sales of singles went down significantly.
But...
Its mostly because they stopped selling singles.
Some of you buy into the crap that these people spout. I think its a joke, and those of buying into these lies should be ashamed of yourselves.
"STOP MAKING SHITTY FUCKING MOVIES"
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)?
It's the Slashdot version of the Goodwin law. When all else fails, justify theft by claiming that whatever you are stealing sucks.
Music sounds the same from an MP3 as it does from a CD. However, I enjoy movies ALOT better on a HUGE projector screen than on my 17" monitor. :-)
Can all fish swim?
It comes across more like genital tugging. When I see heads of organisations like this attempting to paint their business opeations as something the head dude feels morally compelled to do because his child asked him I immediately switch to total cynic mode and am immediately sure there is another agenda.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Several points.
A) In the past few years, Cable TV, view-on-demand, pay-per-view, TiVo and gang have proliferated. Massively. That means that single-viewing of movies became cheaper. Meaning that people can finally see CatWoman for a dollar before blowing $25 on the DVD. Thus, triage has gotten tougher, and crappy movies can't sell DVDs on title alone, anymore, in quantities they used to.
B) Suing downloaders has nothing to do with lost revenue. Lawsuits are, in the modern world, more frequently made to acquire profits than to compensate for losses. SCO would've NEVER generated income based on its alleged properties on the scale of some of companies whom it is suing. It is far easier, and cheaper in the terms of production expenses, to sue someone than to turn out a new product.
C) Suing downloaders, most likely, doesn't have 'making profit' as a primary goal. Most students and high schoolers can't pay tens of thousands of dollars of damages. No. Goal is Shock and Awe assault on offenders. Smack a hundred of them with lawsuits, and others would back off. At least in theory.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact modern movie costs are overblown. If an actor gets paid several mil. dollars for half a year of half-assed work, and you have several of those actors to pay, then add to that a million other overblown expense issues... Holywood really needs some budget lessons.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
I know that some people here don't like the fact of "I'm not going to pay $9/ticket to see a movie but I'll download it for free" issue but it does exist.
I'm one of those people.
Not all movies. We have a "rule of thumb" that unless it gets a 7.0 or higher on IMDB (my peers, so to speak) we just don't go or download it. That all said, we rent DVDs once in a while yet very few of those are worth the effort to copy with DVD Shrink to DVD-R. Most recent movies are so-so one time views, that is what I think they're trying to grasp onto.
Trolling is a art,
Funny you mention this, because I just finished reading Peter Lynch's "Beating The Street". His #1 criteria for picking stocks to buy???--- That the company gives the consumers something they want. That way there will be a long prosperous history of sales. Otherwise the company will dwindle and die. I think if the MPAA goes the way of fighting consumers, alternative sources of entertainment will be found.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Different case. Different issues.
1 is a case of public safety.
2 is a case of a debatable civil issue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Golly, Garcia. If the movies are "SHITTY FUCKING" then don't, uh, download them illegally? If they're that bad, don't watch them.
All your raving is misfocused. People shouldn't pay to watch "SHITTY FUCKING" movies? No, people just shouldn't watch "SHITTY FUCKING" movies. Stealing something "SHITTY FUCKING" is still stealing.
"In fact, it turns me off more than anything." Well, good for you. Honest people can only relate anecdotes from what they know. If you can't relate to the anecdotes, then I only hope you could see his arguments without them.
Now, for a brief economics lesson: studios have to make movies that cost $100 million plus because they have billions of dollars. The truth is they'd love to make great movies with that money, but they have to get a return on their investment. This isn't consumers being limited by the studios: it's the studios responding to the market. I would much rather have my daughter see "The Secret of Roan Inish" than watching some mindless Olsen Twins vehicle. Guess what? Not many other people felt that way, or thay would have bought enough tickets to "Roan Inish" to prove movies like that are worthwhile investments.
McDonald's makes hamburgers because - surprise! - lots of people like hamburgers.
But, getting back to the price tag: a studio has to make big budget movies because they've only got a limited number of film crews, and they have to get a return on ALL their money. If I've got to invest two billion dollars this year, do I make 20 big films or 400 small ones? When the 400 small ones would force me to 1) Investigate 20 times the scripts (not just for quality, but legal rights) 2) build 20 times my existing soundstages 3) hire and equip 20 times the crews and 4) develop 20 times the marketing campaigns?
You wanna see what piracy gets ya? Move to Malaysia for a few years. They will NEVER come up with a major, world-enhancing piece of intellectual property because it gets STOLEN as soon as it appears. Sorry.
And while I can't recommend Anger Management the "SHITTY FUCKING" movie I can recommend Anger Management counselling to you.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
What are you going to do about it, Dad?
Too bad the answer wasn't "Hold out for you to produce a movie that's worth protecting."
What are you talking about? Copyright infringement doesn't have to involve money, making illegal copies, or redistributing copywritten material, without permission, is illegal. Doesn't matter if you make a profit, the rules are the rules.
The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.
Now, of course there are still some stupid hybrid technological/legal measures they're pushing like 5C encryption and the broadcast flag. But if unlawful uses of file sharing/copying/archiving diminish due to fear of individual suits, then legitimate fair use will become a significant part of what is being prevented by these measures and they'll hopefully stop or be forced to stop them. Hopefully.
-Ryan C.
A: My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, "And what are you going to do about it, Dad?"
I can't believe he's actually proud to bring that up. I just can't believe it. It's almost as perverted as the fact that Dubya can call on Jeb or his Dadda to get him whatever he wants.
Man, America is going down the pipes in fifth gear, and nobody's doing anything about it.
<RANT> All you pacifist liberals/lefties/intellos/geeks who like to shit on Micheal Moore because you think it's more intellectual to be able to shit on your own camp (ref. Team America, World Police)... you'd better get off your starbucks drinking asses and get something done, and fast...
I grew up in several countries and continents through my life. Namely, Canada, Turkey and France. I clearly remember in my younger years how the US was in fact something of an ideal. An actual land of the free. You may not realize it but this is changing fast. It actually boggles my mind that such a deep cultural change could sweep the globe so fast.
</RANT>
PS. FUCK KARMA!
Distributing other peoples works without thier permission is indeed against the law and has been for a couple hundred years. The only difference that selling makes is that it then becomes a criminal offense instead of just a civil one.
While I can believe you on the music, I'd really like to know where you found that copy of Beyond Castle Wolfeinstein for the IIe still for sale.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them?
:-P~
Simple macroeconomics. The taco shop on the corner may make lousy tacos, and you'd never buy them at $1 apiece, or even on sale at 39 cents each. If they dropped the price to a nickel, though, even you might go over there for lunch just to save the money to get something else you want or need. Piracy reduces the cost of obtaining a movie to a few cents worth of bandwidth, and with modern PCs it doesn't even tie up the machine, you can run it in the background.
But no, I wouldn't buy or download Garfield, even for free.
Isn't it common knowledge that the single most "stolen/pirated" thing out there in the electronic world is "Windows"? That really destroyed that company...
The best part is that it really _helps_ Microsoft, because it brings about wider adoption.
Do you think Microsoft really cares about that much about home piracy? Yeah, they do come up with all these policies and strategies to counter that - but in truth, it just brings about more people using Windows.
That is an area where Opensource can really pitch in, IMHO.
...those of us who simply don't like theaters? music is very different because you're listening to it (generally) under the same circumstances as you would if you had bought a CD. but for most movies, if you want to see them when they come out, you have to go to the theater, pay too much money, and tolerate a head in front of you, kicking feet and fidgety knees behind you. not to mention a fellow moviegoer who might enjoy announcing plot points. and my all time least favorite, applause. being in the theater for a movie is rarely an enjoyable experience, and i'd much rather watch a movie as soon as it's available in the comfort of my own home, without waiting for it on DVD. why does there have to be a waiting period for watching something in an environment that isn't annoying?
Is this quote supposed to make me feel bad? That the head of the MPAA is fighting for the rights of his son who is a producer? I don't. In fact, it turns me off more than anything.
I totally agree with that... I find it very difficult to feel sorry for millionaires not getting richer. I know we're in a capitalist country, where you can make all the money you want if you're good at it, and that movie piracy is stealing, but for gods sake... don't try to use SYMPATHY to convince us not to steal your movies -- you have far more money than I will ever have, and I will NOT feel sorry for you, EVER.
I feel sorry for kids in Somalia who cannot eat, not for movie producers who cannot buy an M5 for their teenage son, as a birthday present.
SuPz.orG
When you have sites like Suprnova up where every single tv show, movie, game, app, etc is but a click away (and a few hours of downloading), many people think, "hey, its there, its free, and if i like it I might buy it, if not I've saved myself some money"
So its not so much that there's now an intense desire to grab the movie (well, in some cases there is a HUGE desire, but I'm talking about the "shitty" ones), its that there's less reasons NOT to watch the bad ones.
Before nobody watched bad movies in theaters because they didn't want to waste $8. They would just rent it instead for $3. Now they can just check it out for free.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I'm glad you put "property" in quotes, but the example you then go on to give still shows a lack of understanding. In order to even try to argue for the **AA's side, you cannot ever equate real property with intellectual property. That deserved some bold text because it is the #1 trap people fall into when debating this issue.
The reason your Ferrari example can't be used as an analogy is because a Ferrari is an example of real property. It's something that has a reproduction cost. To give a proper analogy, how would you feel if Joe paid the $2,000 for paint, steel, and aluminium and built himself a Ferrari? Would you still call him a thief? Could Ferrari still claim a loss as a result, and would you sympathise bad for them if they did?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Well, here's my advice to the RIAA/MPAA in regards to how they _should_ act.
First on the list of steps toward prevention is; "Remove the temptation." Fair prices, convenient licensing, fair use, etc etc. If a movie or an album is priced appropriately, it will lessen piracy. Although I believe the "I'm pirating it 'cause it's too expensive" excuse is overused.
Second, "Don't play dirty pool.", it only weakens your case in the consumer's eye. There's comercials comparing piracy to theft of material goods. There is a very distinct difference, and while it's technically stealing, it's simply not the same. There's "statistics" saying that there are huge losses where none exist. (This article even has a glaring hole, where Glickman states "there are losses" when presented with the fact that the sales have never been higher) And, my favorite, a comercial I often see at the movies, where a poor helpless stunt man is pleading with people not to steal movies, 'cause he blows himself up for us. (Runner up is the kid who steals a chocolate bar then says "But dad, you steal cable") I think it's sick really.
Third, don't try to "Put the genie back in the bottle". Law suits like the CSS fiasco are rediculous. It's broken, you should have spent more time developing something useful. Mp3s exist, don't fight them, use them. Hard drives are bigger, DVD burners are cheap, audio CDs are easily copied.... DEAL! You can't go back, don't cry over spilt milk... yadda yadda... The sooner you move on, the less money you fritter away (apparently you're all starving remember) and the sooner you can concentrate on adapting instead of fighting the inevitable.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Q: Let's move to politics for a moment. As a lifelong Democrat, your appointment to the MPAA was criticized by several Republicans who said they felt a member of their party should have gotten the nod, since Republicans were in control of Congress. And there have been some reports that Congress withheld its support on some recent MPAA-supported bills in response.
Benito Mussolini, inventor of Fascism, once said that it could more properly be called Corporatism, since it is the merging of government and corporations.
Read the above quote again, folks. We live in The United Coporations of America - a fascist country.
This space available.
Why bother debunking everything a bunch of sue-happy Nazis want people to believe? Doesn't that get tedious? I don't see anyone going so far to debunk the KKK's 'logic' or anything like that. Isn't it easier to just accept that these people are bunch of mindless tyrannic bastards like the aforementioned groups?
Honestly, it's like telling a schizophrenic person his pencil isn't talking.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
People can be nice, well-intentioned, and insightful...but still do lame things. It's true, the past does not determine the future.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
"While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price."
Okay, then why do the studios not deduct this "cost" of piracy off their tax returns? I mean, it is a legitimate business loss, yes?
Perhaps because the IRS would laugh their asses off during an audit (Do you have any evidence to back this up?). In short, it IS NOT a legitimate expense-at least at the levels they state.
If someone (tax professional, IRS agent...) has a better explanation, I really would like to hear it.
Losing money? How's this for loss: "About 250 executives from Hollywood studios and home-electronics companies gathered at the Bellagio in Las Vegas earlier this year to toast their soaring fortunes, thanks to the phenomenal success of the digital video disc. Major studios sold a stunning $9.4 billion worth of DVDs to retailers last year, proof that DVDs now bring in a majority--52 percent in 2003--of Hollywood's revenue." (Newsweek July 5, 04)
So isn't THAT a hoot. These are same maroons who fought videotape under the premise that it would RUIN Hollywood (sorry, there are more than enough folks making crappy movies to do that already). But VHS opened up a multibillion dollar business expansion for them. DVD only speeds up their revenue machine. And now they're fighting DVD tooth & nail (i.e. buried 321 Studios, r.i.p., etc.) and continue to beat on every other possible means of DVD fair use.
"I tried to sleep my way to the top, but my alarm clock always wakes me right up" - TMBG
I've personally heard two well-known authors rant that libraries are theft. (One runs around suing ebook downloaders already; that should give away his identity. :)
As to the entire **AA anti-downloading stance, as I and others have pointed out many times, it has nothing to do with piracy. It has to do with *controlling the distribution channel*. If the only way to distribute a song or movie is thru the big cartel, the big cartel takes a cut of the profit (or in Real Life, MOST if not ALL of the profit). If people can offer their songs and films for download, those songs and movies are removed from the cartels' revenue stream. Scare average joes into believing ALL downloads are theft that results in draconian penalties, and you've killed that competition before it can mature enough to start *really* taking your revenue.
As to the interview, I'd like to know how downloaders have anything to do with illicit DVDs being sold on street corners??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Your real problem is that you cannot see beyond the power of the moment, to the balance of the future. Sadly your hatred blinds you to the truth, and you see fit to live your days in the paranoid shell you have crafted for yourself.
It might be true. I can see right now, in these days of despair, that my biggest weakness is my extreme aversion for the American 'Freedom' and Glory. Now a much less rational me would have been very upset that Bush was re-elected. But a more relaxed me sees this as the perfect opportunity to finally remove the monopole that has been formed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I will not get into details about that, but I tell you something you should watch out for yourself: while I may be assertive and very loud in what I'm saying... even fanatically emotional about it, I never pretend to know "The Truth" as you seem to think you have. My hatred blindes [me] to your truth... Not the truth!
I will also not get into that one too long: my last point is more about this thread. I think you should look at places like Europe and places like the Arab countries for what I am talking about. France is far more on the socialist end of the spectrum than the states. And yet, they have achieved through that socialist bureaucracy something that America desperatly needs right now: there is no chance for families to control things in France. The system is run by a system... a system of bureaucracy and rules. At first you might think that's bad and wrong. But they aren't doing bad at all for the size of their country. The level of research being done in French and German labs is very impressive. Their level of life is very high. Without comparing them to the US, I would say they are doing very well for themselves (so let's not go ahead and dismiss my point here simply by saying "yeah well socialism sucks anyways").
On a contrasted view, the arab countries, especially the oil producing ones are basically run by big families, Sheiks and their myriad cousins.
There's (fierce) commercial competition in France, despite the less capitalist point of view they have... I don't see that kind of 'freedom' around the arab countries.
Answer me now: which one would you rather gravitate towards? Families running the show, or a loose system.
Because as much as we talk about Big Brother running the show in the States, in my opinion, the show is being run more and more by Little Brother and his cousins.
PS. I live in Canada. If you must know.