Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Agent Ari Emanuel Wants a Magic 'Stop Piracy' Button
closer2it writes "At this week's All Things D conference, Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher invited Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel. He spoke about things like TV not dying, cord-cutting being some kind of myth, and that googlers are smart guys and they should do something about the stealing of content. Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him (video) on this point, asking: 'Aren't you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?' Emanuel didn't like this analogy, and even ended the reply asking Topolsky where he works. Mike Masnick also wrote a piece about the interview. I guess that if the Internet has enemies, I'd say Emanuel gives them a face."
If the "Googlers" are smart guys, doesn't that only show you'd have to be stupid to support the entertainment industry's view of how content should be bought, sold, and used?
It seems like both sides were just shouting in each other's direction, not actually answering the points being made. Google are not the copyright police, but they do block child pornography. Come one, answer these points, make your case instead of just repeating yourself.
To be fair the host needed to step in and moderate too. Is this what passes for a debate?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'd hardly call piracy theft. I think I would call it taking out the trash.
that should such a button ever come into existence, its largest affect would be upon the RIAA and MPAA themselves.
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont. trailers are designed to hype the films premise by any means; whatever it takes for the dog to bite. I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater. I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
I pirate music much less rarely; no thanks to the RIAA. the bands i like let me give them money directly. I recently bought a box-set from the band red-flag. it came on a USB drive in the format i can use, and even included cool remix tracks. as for the artists with catchy riffs and melodies but no real characteristic to appreciate, i can justify pirating from them for a few reasons. The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?
Somebody is responsible for me feeling annoyed right now, but who do I blame? Slashdot for posting the story, Emanuel for being an idiot, or.. it's me, isn't it?
...and give it marching orders. Use the entertainment industry to sell computers and to generate internet revenue.
"Give them the razor, sell them the blades" by buying out the razor factory.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Really? You must have been watching a different video.
Topolsky's argument and analogy made sense. Emanuel didn't have a counter argument so he resorted to name calling and bullying from his self-styled throne. He was in a room full of his cohorts and admirers, and he had an obligation to listen and present an intelligent response. He didn't.
Sorry, but bullying only makes him look like an ass.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
that some people have no idea about how the world works ...
that they so profoundly have no grasp on the shared experiences of the rest of humanity
that the world falls outside the field of the comprehension and has problems more pressing then shit that affects you
consider perhaps people you don't distribute or market your goods to directly MIGHT enjoy seeing them...
that the systems and restrictions you bring to a market place are the reason people are seeking alternatives
No, he wants to know where you work so he can complain to the politicians that your company is costing his company money.
Which is exactly the strategy that Cary Sherman of RIAA suggested when SOPA failed.
If it's about "Hollywood vs. freedom", Hollywood loses.
But if the debate can be reframed to "MPAA vs. Google", or "RIAA vs. Telcos", Hollywood wins, because they can just point the finger and say "Look, we're only saying the things we say because we work for Paramount, Universal, and other MAFIAA organizations. But you're only saying that because you work for Google, a telco, or an ISP, you're a lobbyist just like us!" and with the debate framed in a context that the politicians will understand, Ari and Sherman can easily demand a law that transfers wealth from "Northern California" to "Southern California" (by transferring the cost of preventing piracy from "Southern California rightsholders" to "Northern California companies whose customers happen to infringe on those rights").
There is no general correlation between a weak argument and being not wrong (or a strong argument, for that matter). There is just the fact that in this particular instance, the argument presented was a weak attempt to make a particular point. And while others are criticizing Emanual for simply bullying in response, if you listen, he actually made an argument in response which Topolsky failed to counter, despite it also being a weak argument.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
A 'Stop Crap' button for the lame films they spew.
A 'Stop Bay' button to make him stop ruining my childhood like a TNT wielding GLucas on crack.
A 'Stop Lucas' button while we're at it.
A 'Stop Gouge' button that makes a movie night cost me less than or equal to what I make in it's equivalent running time.
A 'Stop Loss' button that refunds me the price of admission, snacks and reimburses me for my time when the only good parts of the feature appear in the trailer in their entirety.
There's more, but I figure Santa can get started on these and I'll get the rest to him before Christmas.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
The last few seconds pretty much sums up Ari's shortsightedness. A man from the audience is explaining that what happened to the music industry (how Apple saved the failing business model) and Ari agrees with that, then the man from audience asks if he doesn't see the writing on the wall, that this is going to happen to TV soon, within 20 years. Ari's answer is that he'll be fine with that, he'll be 71.
This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality. In the digital age it is folly to let these idiots lead the content industry. They're concerned about immediate profits, with no regard to what will happen in the near future.
People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything that is expected to last more than a mere 20 years. If you want your business to fail within 20 years, then Ari is your man. Ari is a death sentence to a company.
What a childish and arrogant attitude of entitlement.
Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.
I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography.
2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose.
3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.
Now comes the obvious question.
So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.
Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.
Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.
Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.
At some point, should the amount of fake tan you apply disqualify your opinions from consideration?
Just a thought.
.: Semper Absurda
In the video I watched, Emanual absolutely had a counter argument.
Topolsky said "they (Google) aren't policemen, they don't police things" and Emanual responded "no, they decide when they want to police something and when they don't want to". He went on to discuss how Google is actively filtering child pornography, but refuses to actively filter copyright infringement. Topolsky had no response to that other than to mutter "I don't know" and then go back to the road analogy and talk about tearing up the road. However, using his analogy, Emanual was not arguing that the road be torn up, just that since the road is already being policed for one bad thing, then it should also be policed for other bad things.
The argument that Topolsky should have brought was that, first of all, Google doesn't filter child pornography, so Emanual's premise is wrong. Secondly, child pornography is always illegal (at least in the U.S where this debate was occurring), so any instance of child pornography is, by definition, an instance of illegal child pornography, whereas an instance of downloaded content is not necessarily an instance of illegally downloaded content, so the filtering is different. Basically, the nature of the content in question is that it must be self-policed.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
There exists a certain kind of person who will think that when you do something with computers, you are some kind of genius and a genius is almost a wizard if not a warlock or something. It might SOUND like awe but you can hear them linking it with witchcraft and selling your sole for a demonbuggering you.
Sometimes, praises ain't praises at all. Googlers are smart guys sounds a bit to much like Jews are really good with money, White people got all the jobs and Blacks sure got rhythm. Quick personality test, which of these made your blood boil? Mmm, interesting...
But where your grandmothers world views might be relatively harmless (where was she during the holocaust or lynchings etc etc) this guy uses it to put the blame for all his whoes on another group of people. Consider this: You can blame your high fuel prices on the oil companies, big money, Illuminati etc etc. This is straightforward blaming (and usually gets racist sooner or later). OR you can say, those motor company guys are smart guys and they can build a fuel efficient 3 ton SUV for you to drive alone... AND the unvoiced part here IS: but they ain't, so those guys must be in cohoots with the former guys who are controlling the entire world.
In short, this praise of googlers is NOT praise but saying really: They could fix it if they wanted to but they don't want to.
Pretty nice since this needly sidesteps the challenge of proving it can be done. Simply, they are smart, they can do it, if they wanted to and they must.
The problem this guy, Ari Emanuel faces is that he can't deal with the idea that world changes. Not just faster computers, bigger SUV's etc etc but that our culture, our idea of who we are, what we value, how we live, how we entertain ourselves, our morals, EVERYTHING changes over time. Copyright as it exists now, did NOT always exist in its current form. It was introduced quite recently and then it was introduced because tech (printing and music recording) were changing the world.
BUT that is just the shallow end of the changes made a hundred or so years ago. How many of you got an instrument you play with regulatory for your enjoyment? Wink wink, nudge nudge know what I mean
What I mean of course is that the sale of musical instruments has plummeted, once if you wanted to listen to music, you made it yourself. For hundreds, no thousands of years. Long before any copyright existed to "protect" music. In fact copyright was not introduced to protect musicians or even song writers but to protect music PUBLISHERS. Recorded music, first pianola, later wax cylinders etc changed all this. But it changed far more then just how music made its way around. How many in your youth went to a disco... okay, wrong place to ask BUT think about this, going to a disco or dance is basically the same thing but how normal do you find it have LIVE music playing? When there was no recorded music, far more people played to entertain others outside the home. Now only a few even play inside the home.
Recorded music has been killing MUSIC!
And yet, we SURVIVED!!! Society did NOT collapse. This was feared every time culture changed, the end of theater because of the movies, the end of the movies because of TV, the end of TV because of the VCR.
Culture survived! Might it also survive a new change? An era in which entertainment is once again produced differently? Think about cover bands. They are NOT a new thing but with recorded music, people for the first time had an idea of how the original sounded. Cover bands just USED to play popular music they heard in one place in another by just listening and changing it ever so slightly. That is how many a folklore story got changed and yet remained the same. (Yes, that too is part of mass media entertainment, just a different era). The idea that ONE company, one performer can now set how ALL other performers of a similar product are judged against the "original" is quite new. Quick, Snowwhite, the little mermain, picture them. If you can't help but see th
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Topolsky thought his analogy would be a knock out punch, he made the rookie mistake of not having thought about possible counter arguments before he spoke. What we saw in the video is the proverbial tale of the blind men and the elephant
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I have always though that Hollywood executives were completely Idiotic Morons with an IQ around 85.
And this guy has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.
Please hollywood, keep hiring and showcasing complete idiots like this guy. It means you will not see the end coming and will stand there off guard and blindsided when the bitter end whips and smacks them in the face.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Another analogy that fits better is this.
Is it Verizon or AT&T's responsibility to police phone lines for someone who might be planning a robbery with another robber over the telephone? Is it the phone company's responsibility to do a criminal background check before handing out a phone book full of address information? Google is just a 411 service for the internet. And internet service providers just provide the pipes.
Really wish Josh would have thought it through more, it was an important televised moment to speak truth to power, in this whole piracy debate.
Your solution here is Netflix.
When does Song of the South or Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea come to Netflix?
Have gnu, will travel.
It works the same as magazine subscriptions. The network exists to show you advertisements. If not enough people are watching then not enough advertisements are viewed and advertisers go elsewhere. So there's lots of free magazine subscriptions given away to people who may or may not even realize they're getting them just to inflate the numbers. If nobody complains about it being undeliverable they just count it as a subscription.
Your cable company is having trouble getting enough customers to get advertisers to believe that they're getting something for their money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One man's sociopath is another family's support. They support this person's madness because they want to live well.
I agree with you, BUT I know a few people like this. They are really nice face to face. CHarming, fun, witty, but when you start to hear what their views on competition and other people are... watch out. They'll screw anybody over anything, waste anyone's time to their benefit. They are a parasite, and while they seem nice they are a horrible blemish on what it means to be a society.
Problem is, in our twitter and meetings-once-a-year-to-keep-the-client-happy business climate, that charm is all they need to cover up what a couple extra hours of face time would lay bare very quickly.
-