Slashdot Mirror
The MPAA and EFF Cross Sabers
wigwamus writes "Motion Picture Association President Dan Glickman and Electronic Freedom Foundation co-founder Johh Perry Barlow lock horns, then knock lumps off each other over the movie business' attitude to the Internet. From the article: 'These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices.'"
The bottom line is that if I can see it or I can hear it, I can find a way to copy it. If you make it too difficult to watch a movie or listen to a music, people won't buy it. They'll eventually figure out that they have more to gain by making things easy to use rather than creating ill will and incompatibiity by trying to stamp out casual copying.
I think Glickmans comparison of music to clothes and cars is where his argument fails.
Copying a song does not deprive anybody of the item - only the entity that controls how money is made from the transaction
See the Boston Tea Party and the American War of Independence.
KFG
As someone who recently was a 17 year old "electronic Hezbollah", I can say ideology had nothing to do with my choice to download and share movies. I did it, and still do, because it's easy and costs basically nothing. Sure I don't like the MPAA but I would still torrent if they didn't exist.
if you change one word I think your point becomes fallible.
People with old world business experience going up against young idealists
In either case, new ideas actually quite often do win.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
The real thing the 'AAs have lost is the power of distribution.
20 years ago if you wanted a movie you had to hop in the car. Even for home viewing of a VHS you had to go to the video store.
The MPAA and RIAA need to face the fact that the internet is essentially a broadcast/time-shifted medium which casts to a broader audience than ever. And how do broadcaster's make their money? Advertising.
This may or may not be a popular notion - but it is my opinion that the best way to support movies and music in the future is via product endorsement. Yes, that's right. You might see wayne's world-esqe product placement rise - but isn't everyday life just product placement anyhow? look around you and count the consumer items that have no labeling on them. Our movies and music should follow suit and become freely distributable.
They cannot hold back the tide forever - I think it is inevitable.
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
"Look, this works. I have proof."
"I refuse to believe it can work."
If they can't listen to reason, we'll have to wait for them to die, it seems.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can tell Dan Glickman's age in his speech:
- Microsoft: SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005
- Washington Mutual: 2 dollars given out in $2 denominations(the $2 bill)
- Gentleware: Poseidon(Community Edition)
- Wal Mart / Sam's Club: Sampled foods from selected vendors
- Arby's: Chicken Fingers(?)
- Google
It doesn't defy the law of nature, it's a useful technique called marketing!Old man should see this
In a contest they would.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
often, but not always. with movie piracy I am reminded often of what happened in Canada many years ago with cigarettes. Big business (the Canadian gov't) lost big time on that one and the little guy was triumphant.
Without going into much detail, or even providing a link (i'm that lazy and at work so I shouldn't even be here) - Canada decided smokers would pay out the ass if they heavily taxed cig's, i mean heavily, i think at the time it was early 90's and suddenly the price of the dirty cancer sticks jumped a couple of dollars. they still paid. for awhile. than, oddly enough, people found some stores that sold cheaper slightly less taxed (OK, not taxed at all) cigs at some stores. Canadians liking to save money like everyone else opted for the lower cost. I inquired into it a bit and discovered that pirate rings for cigarettes had been established - in some cases it was local reserves, others it was smuggling from the US, and local stores were frequently buying quantities of cigarettes of people who sure didn't look very official.
the gov't saw this happening and took immediate steps to stop it that succeeded, they dropped the tax on the cigarettes and learned a valuable lesson - when you charge a lot for crap, people stop buying it. now to bring this up to today, in the article the MPAA advise that they need to pay these people salaries so they will continue to produce, i whole heartedly agree, but not million dollar salaries, if you need to make several million for working for a few weeks and can't get by without it, than screw you and the horse you rode in on. if the product was priced more on par with the value the consumer got from it than they wouldn't be having this problem.
People are powerless when they are convinced they are powerless.
Join Tor today!
The funny part is (at least to me) that this is not about an industry so much as it is about the *AA and associates trying to maintain a fully disfunctional (in light of current and future technologies) business model.
The real deal in all this mess is that content creators "REALLY DON'T NEED THE *AA ANYMORE" since for not much more than a data center contract, any record label, including independents, can set up their own music distribution system over the Internet. The entire need for a music and movie distribution organization (i.e., the *AAs) no longer exists.
US Telephone users are finally going to get to stop paying for the Spanish American war, but when will recording artists get to stop paying for 'breakage of vynl disks' on their contracts?
Its not about DRM, its about stolen wealth, and the *AA is currently stealing it, blatantly stealing it. They counter claim that because they were unable to steal it from content buyers, it was stolen from them.... I'm calling BS.
Now, the price of content is high because of the *AAs of the world, but if content providers could get out of the draconian contract they signed, and start providing content over the Internet at reasonable costs to users for the 'PURCHASE' of said content, most users would happily just purchase the content as its not worth the effort to most people to be illegal or even figure out the ins and outs of stealing it. Additionally, any kind of licensing setup that allowed fair use (backup copies, multiple players, etc.) would be accepted easily if the price was low enough (see iFanboi rhetoric for an example).
Its pure "pot and kettle black and white" when it comes to the *AA claiming downloaders and file sharers are stealing from them.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People