Author Sherman Alexie's Rants On Colbert Against Ebooks, Piracy And 'Open Source Culture'

from the you-said-what-now? dept

On last night's Colbert Report, author Sherman Alexie spent most of the interview ranting against digital books and how "piracy" was destroying the book business. The whole thing was odd not just because of how uninformed it was, but also because he seemed to contradict himself multiple times. I haven't read any of Alexie's books, but if his logic is so twisted, it's difficult to think that his books are worth reading:

He starts out by insisting that he won't put his book on the Kindle or any digital book format because he's afraid of piracy -- but that makes no sense at all. By not giving readers what they want, he's actually encouraging more piracy. There are probably plenty of people actively willing to buy ebook versions of his book, and his response is that because of piracy, he won't offer it to them. How does this help? Those people now have more incentive to actually go and download an unauthorized copy of the book (and Alexie is fooling himself if he thinks they don't exist). How can not giving people what they're asking for and are willing to pay for be a smart business model?

He compares the book business to the music business, saying:

"When the music industry went digital, somewhere between 75 and 95% of music is pirated. Nobody makes money off their music any more. Everything is about live shows now."

First of all, it wasn't the industry that went digital. Music went online way before the industry even realized it, and one of the main reasons that the piracy rates are as high as they are (and his numbers are industry figures that aren't reliable at all) was because the industry held back for so long in giving people what they wanted: which is exactly what Alexie is now doing!

As for his claim that no one makes money off their music any more, that's obviously silly. He admits that they now make their money from live shows (which is making money off their music). And then later in the interview, he points out that one of the parts he enjoyed most about being a published author was doing live performances and readings of his works. In other words, he already does what he claims happened to the music industry. So why is he so worried about piracy? That's not clear at all.

He also seems rather uninformed about how file sharing has helped some authors.

I'd be really worried if I were Stephen King or James Patterson or a really big best seller that when their books become completely digitized, how easy it's going to be to pirate them.

Where to start....? First, Alexie doesn't seem to understand how book file sharing happens. It's not because the industry digitizes the books, but because others digitize those books, and, yes, they're most likely already available on file sharing networks, whether those authors released them in ebook form or not. It's not the official ebook they're sharing in most cases anyway.

Second, as for the claim that it will harm the biggest name authors most of all, Alexie might want to talk to Paulo Coehlo. Coehlo is the guy who quietly set up operations to "pirate" his own book and saw the sales of his physical books increase massively. Oh, and the book he chose to offer up via BitTorrent, The Alchemist is one of the best selling books of all time. Stephen King and James Patterson, by the way, do not have any books on that list -- though, to be fair, if you combine all of their books, King has sold more than Coehlo, and Patterson seems to be in a similar ballpark, probably selling slightly more than Coehlo, but both have published many more books.

Then, really strangely, he attacks "open source culture":

With the "open source culture" on the internet, the idea of ownership -- of artistic ownership -- goes away.

Now, beyond this just being flat out wrong about what "open source" means or what "open source culture" is, what's the most bizarre thing about this statement is who it's coming from. Alexie is most well-known for his writing about modern Native American life -- and Native Americans aren't exactly known for their strong believe in artistic ownership. In fact, much of the understanding of so-called "gift economies," which are sometimes (though not always accurately) used to describe the open source world are actually based on Native American gift giving culture of tribes in the Pacific Northwest, which is where Alexie is from.

Colbert actually does a good job pushing back on this, in his usual self-mocking manner, pointing out that sharing helps get the word out there, and the only reason he's so famous is because of how easily his content is shared via TV. Without that, he notes, he'd have to just go door to door shouting at people. To which Alexie responds: "I'm a fan of door to door shouting at people." Good luck with that.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

One Misguided Tweet Is 'Indisputable' Evidence That Piracy Harms Movies?

from the how-so? dept

We recently wrote about how filmmaker Rhett Reese was somewhat misguided in lashing out at fans over their claims on Twitter that they had downloaded his movie Zombieland. Of course, both of the fans that he lashed out at noted they had seen the film in the theaters (one of them multiple times) and the download was a repeat viewing -- and they still planned to buy the DVD, since they loved the film so much. Still, the Twitter message from Reese that got the most attention was the claim that all this downloading would greatly impact the likelihood of a sequel. A few days later, Reese decided to further elaborate his stance on "piracy" and it is a bit more nuanced -- he admits that his messages were fueled more by emotion than by rational thought, though he is still upset about people downloading his films and is worried about where it "inevitably leads."

From this, Captain Kibble alerts us to an accurately described "rant" at ScreenRants.com about how this is "indisputable" evidence that piracy harms movies. The basis of that claim? Reese's heat of the moment claim that this could impact the making of a sequel. According to the ScreenRants folks, this suggests it's a fact that movie piracy is harming movies. Of course, there's no actual evidence that there is any decreased interest in making a Zombieland sequel. In fact, since the highest grossing movies almost always correlate to the most shared movies online, it seems that being a top pirated movie also likely has extremely high correlation with movies that get sequels.

Could file sharing be harming movies? Yes, it's possible. But there is scant evidence that it's a huge or serious threat that can't be dealt with through better and smarter business models. As we've seen with smart filmmakers who embrace file sharing as a way to gain more fans and "converts," it can actually help them make more money by building up more people who want to support the filmmaker.

That said, the latter half of the ScreenRants rant actually does make a few good suggestions, noting that part of the issue is Hollywood's slothlike pace in offering movie fans what they want in terms of online services and video on demand. One of these days, the movie industry will figure this stuff out, and the answer isn't freaking out and complaining about "piracy," but finally putting in place the business models that we've seen are working already.

63 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If Movie Piracy Is Really A Problem, It's Hollywood's Fault

from the walking-through-the-logic dept

The folks in Hollywood have been working overtime lately trying to convince the world that piracy is harming the industry, even as the industry is having its best year ever in terms of both money made and the number of movies released. It's an uphill slog, so lobbyists, lawyers and execs from the various studios have resorted to what can only be described as "making stuff up." But, like the poor corn farmers that NBC Universal lawyers think are being hurt by movie piracy, most of these claims don't pass the laugh test.

But, of course, the story goes even deeper than that. As we've noted before, despite claims to the contrary, "piracy" is almost always an indicator of unmet consumer demand and a failure on the part of the industry to meet that demand. Matt Mason's book from last year made this quite clear, and now the EFF's Fred von Lohmann has done a great job detailing how any "problems" that Hollywood might face from "piracy" are problems of its own making. He points to the attempts by the major studios to block Redbox and delay movie rentals.

It's the same thing we've seen over and over again. You don't win customers by taking rights away from them. You win customers by adding more value. But that seems to be total anathema to Hollywood. Instead, it seems to think that the only way to run a business is to take away or disable rights and features from users, and then charge them to re-enable them. It's not difficult to see why this is not just a recipe for failure, but one that will only drive more people to piracy, after the industry blocks them from getting what it seems perfectly reasonable to expect -- and what the technology clearly allows.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy

from the going-in-the-wrong-direction dept

Well, you just knew this was going to happen eventually. Suddenly publishers are starting to freak out over "ebook piracy," claiming (totally inaccurately) that they've lost $600 million to it. Of course, as some are noting the real problem isn't "piracy" but the industry's response to it:

The best way to fight piracy? Got e-book shoppers accustomed to buying from legitimate sources before it's too late. That means easy downloading, fair prices and the ability to move content easily from machine to machine within a household. Use of the standard ePub format and the end of traditional DRM could go a long way in that regard.

Instead, they're likely to go in the other direction (they always do) and try to raise the DRM walls higher in a futile effort to "fight" piracy. Of course, as we discussed nearly a year ago, the ebook industry could really use more piracy, because it's actually a great indicator of what people really want. And, of course, locking up content with more DRM will only serve to take away value. If there's growing piracy, that just means the industry is putting up unreasonable barriers. Hopefully publishers realize this before totally screwing things up, but somehow it seems likely they'll make all the same mistakes as the music industry.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy

from the must-be-the-new-talking-point dept

I'm beginning to sense a trend. Just last month, we talked about a top exec at Paramount claiming that his "real worry" about movie piracy online was how it was going to harm indie films, since, as a big company, Paramount could take it. Then, just a week or so later, Sony Pictures' boss, Michael Lynton, also started talking about how fewer movies were being made due to piracy. Unfortunately, he was wrong. In the past five years the number of films being released has more than doubled and the major studios are making more money than ever at the box office. And yet... they keep trying. Dark Helmet points us to the news that the CEO of Fox Films, Jim Gianopulos, is the latest to claim that movie "piracy" is harming independent films the most (while saying it's harming everyone in the movie business, despite no evidence to support that claim). He made this statement while suggesting that the US needs to follow France in kicking people off the internet for file sharing accusations (not convictions).

It looks like the heads of the studios have all received their talking points from the same source (MPAA?) on this one. They're going to talk up the supposed harm to indie films, even as the indie film market appears to be figuring stuff out on its own (in part due to smart indie film producers embracing file sharing as a better means of distribution and promotion). My guess is that the strategy is a response to the realization that those massive box office returns don't look good when the major studios argue for more draconian copyright laws, so just as the RIAA makes up stories about "protecting the up-and-coming artist," the major studios and the MPAA are now using a bogus PR strategy of "protecting the indie filmmaker," when all they really want are more laws to offer additional protectionist policies for the next blockbuster.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sony Pictures Having Its Best Box Office Year Ever... Still Blaming Piracy For Killing The Business

from the something-doesn't-seem-right-here dept

Sony Pictures' CEO is Michael Lynton, the guy who recently claimed that "nothing good" has come from the internet, and that piracy is killing the movie business. He made that statement less than a month ago. And yet, as Dave Title points out, Sony Pictures just announced that its international box office results have already set a new record for the year, hitting $1.63 billion. The company is bragging about this new record -- as it should. But it does seem a bit disingenuous to brag about revenue records just weeks after claiming that piracy was destroying your business and asking for government help to protect the business model. Someone might notice that these two things do not seem to agree.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Video Game Developers Say That Piracy Really Isn't A Big Threat To Business

from the good-for-them dept

Well this is a bit of a surprise. For all the talk we keep hearing about how piracy is destroying the video game industry, and news stories with video game execs talking up DRM and the threat of piracy, a recent study of video game developers had only 10% saying that piracy was a threat to their business. Plenty were concerned about it as an issue they had to deal with, but most seemed to have some perspective on the relative risk of the threat. In fact, other parts of the survey note that about 50% are adapting to the marketplace, saying that "piracy" will change the way they do business, with it mostly meaning more "piracy-proof" business models. On the DRM front, there isn't a whole lot of interest. 50% called it irrelevant with another 20% describing DRM as a part of the problem. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the findings (which makes me wonder a bit about the methodology), but it's nice to see at least some suggestion that developers are adapting, rather than threatening and blaming.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Hollywood Insists Canada Is A Den Of Copyright Thieves, Movie Business Is Thriving

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

For years, Hollywood has pushed a totally ridiculous claim that Canada is somehow a den of copyright thieves, and it needs to make its copyright laws much more strict. This fantasy has worked on journalists and politicians, who insist that the movie industry is dying in Canada due to rampant piracy. Except someone forgot to inform the real world. An anonymous reader sends over the news that the owners of Cineplex in Canada are reporting record box office sales and revenue, even with the current economic downturn. Once again (and yes, we've been pointing this out for a decade), it appears that it's the actual experience that gets people to go to the movies. The folks at Cineplex note that a growing number of highly experiential films -- such as those using IMAX or 3D technology -- has really helped in getting more people into the theater and in getting them to pay more.

Oh, and as a special note to NBC Universal's General Counsel, Rick Cotton, who seemed so worried about those poor corn farmers who would be decimated by piracy, you can rest easy:

Concession revenues did well due to a film slate that catered to family audiences, who tend to be higher concession spenders.

Phew. Now Rick can go back to working on ways to stop people from watching the Olympics and figuring out ways to avoid paying copyright royalties to songwriters.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Gets Town To Turn Off Free Muni-WiFi Over Single Unauthorized Movie Download

from the the-internets-must-die dept

Dan alerts us to the news that the free muni-WiFi system used around the Coshocton’s County Courthouse in Northern Ohio was shut down over a complaint by the MPAA over a single unauthorized movie download. Amazingly, rather than admit that perhaps that was going a bit too far in punishing everyone in that town over a single individual's usage, the MPAA couldn't resist the opportunity to complain about the evils of movie piracy again. The MPAA doesn't seem concerned at all about the collateral damage, and just thinks that it's a good opportunity to push ahead with its misguided complaint against file sharing.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IFPI: If Lawsuits Aren't Working In Denmark, We'll Seize Computers To Get Evidence

from the um,-wow dept

We just wrote about how the Danish anti-piracy group was dropping its lawsuits against individual file sharers after realizing that Danish law made it almost impossible for the industry to win those cases. However, as pointed out by brokep, the international wing of the recording industry, the IFPI, wasted little time in trying to spin the news in its favor (Google translation of the original). The IFPI insists that the lawsuits won't stop, but just that the anti-piracy organization was realizing it needed more detailed evidence -- and this means that it will now start seizing computers to get evidence. Now, the Google translation trips up over the word "beslagslaeggelse," but multiple Danish speakers have confirmed that the word means "seize" or "confiscate." Of course, that raises some questions about why a private organization representing record labels has any right to seize computers of individuals. I think they were better off when they just admitted they were going to give up on the counterproductive legal strategy.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Danish Anti-Piracy Group Withdraws All Its Lawsuits Against Individuals (After Losing Most Anyway)

from the nice-work dept

While the RIAA has backed down (but not stopped) lawsuits against those accused of file sharing in the US, it looks like the Danish anti-piracy bureau has decided to drop all of its lawsuits after it became clear that individuals were basically winning them all (Google translation of the original, found via brokep). Basically, the courts acquitted most of the individuals accused of private file sharing, with the one exception being the case where the guy confessed. And, the nature of the rulings in the acquittals made it clear that it was virtually impossible to win a lawsuit against individuals for file sharing. Of course, we have no doubt that the industry will continue to use other means, such as via regulatory capture, to continue to look for ways not to give consumers what they want.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Grammy Winner: If You're A Good Musician, You Have Nothing To Fear With Piracy

from the but-if-you're-bad... dept

Last year, we wrote about Grammy award wining singer Joss Stone and her opinions on file sharing where she said she "loves it" and thinks "it's brilliant." More recently, Stone was asked about her EMI labelmate Lily Allen's recent misguided attack on file sharing (even as she, with the help of EMI, was file sharing a ton of tracks). Stone's response, as noted at Freakbits, is basically that musicians who are good have nothing to fear, but she could see why musicians who aren't very good (apparently, she means Ms. Allen) do have reason to fear:

"She [Lily Allen] needs to sell records because she's not a singer, and that's not an offense to her because I think that she knows that too," says Stone.

"...when musicians are really making real music people come to the show and that's what we make our money from, from playing live. And I think it's probably harder for an artist like Lily and many other pop acts. It's really about the track and about their personality and their celebrity and that's how they make their money is selling those records."

Stone says that Lily cannot win a fight against music piracy, and for that matter, neither can anyone else.

"So let's just accept it and let's see it as something that can be beautiful and it might change music for the better," she says pragmatically. "It might sort the weeds from the flowers."

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Radio Program On 'Piracy' What 60 Minutes Should Have Done

from the you-mean-actually-have-facts? dept

On Monday, we wrote about that that ridiculous attempt by 60 Minutes to do a story about movie piracy that was basically one long press release for the MPAA's position. Facts weren't checked, and the reporter, Leslie Stahl, didn't bother to push back on a single claim made by any of the (all industry insider) guests. However, Boing Boing points us to a "radio documentary" on piracy that was done on Australian radio the very same day as the 60 Minutes episode aired. You may notice a major difference in that the Australian radio folks actually looked at the facts, invited on people who could refute industry claims, and actually pushed back on claims by the industry:

Adrianne Pecotic (from anti-piracy group AFACT): The fact that there is a level of illegitimate consumption of film and television is something that detracts from the revenue that could go back into the industry and could go back into supporting local video stores, local cinemas and online distribution. Theft is not justified because someone is being successful, and that's a really important point in this debate.

Oscar McLaren (radio host): But it does seem strange that I mean, we're told in quite apocalyptic terms often that the video industry and the film industry is really starting to hurt. I don't imagine many people would actually be aware that the revenues are in fact going up quite steadily and have been for the past decade or so.

Adrianne Pecotic: I think the important thing about the losses that are being suffered by the film industry through piracy, is that individual investors in individual films rely on that investment in that particular film, for that film maker, or that investor as their entire revenue. If you're looking at the analysis across the board of the whole industry and whether it is going up or whether more people are consuming films or less people are consuming films, you're not asking the question of whether a particular film has had the opportunity to recoup its proper revenue.

Oscar McLaren: For the record, box office sales were also at all-time high levels last year, reaching nearly $1-billion.

The program also pushed back against the repeated claim that a download is no different than shoplifting:

Oscar McLaren: But many lawyers in the debate argue that stealing a physical object is very different to breaching intellectual property laws....

Jessica Litman: The difference between a song and a cookie is if I eat a cookie, then you can't have it because I've eaten it, it's gone. But if I listen to a song, you can listen to a song, your friend can listen to a song, anyone can listen to a song, and because intellectual property is capable of being enjoyed by many people at the same time, it's subject to somewhat different rules than cookies. Or houses, or other kinds of property.

The report goes in-depth in other areas as well, including a discussion on fair use/fair dealing, the history of copyright (and how it's often been abused in the name of artists, when it really had nothing to do with them) and the importance of mashup/remix culture. It's the sort of report that a program like 60 Minutes could have -- and should have -- done, but did not. Kudos to ABC radio down in Australia.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy

from the no-sense-of-history dept

31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.

No such luck.

CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.

The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don't show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies -- which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is "making its money" off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the "journalists" at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.

A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA's line before, so it's no surprise that he does so again. He claims that "piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office." Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don't want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don't know what they're talking about.

Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry's own numbers:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That's the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.

The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through "airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones." Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?

And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and "popcorn" represents an infinitesimal part of the market...). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:

"Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States."

Except, as we noted above, he's off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of "fact" that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show's reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn't it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton's bogus number? Apparently not.

Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can't be important here, can it?

Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It's just that Sodergbergh says.

And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn't talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn't talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn't talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA's claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn't even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.

148 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise

from the whoops dept

Ah, remember Michael Lynton? The Sony Pictures CEO who earlier this year insisted that nothing good had come from the internet at all. When everyone started mocking him for this statement, rather than back off, he doubled down and insisted it was true, using examples that were easily debunked. Apparently, he hasn't learned his lesson. He's back at it, pushing for the UK (and others) to pass laws kicking people off the internet (so-called "three strikes" laws) while insisting that due to piracy there's less money to make movies and fewer movies being made. Of course, those are things that can be fact checked, and the folks over at TorrentFreak did exactly that, pointing out that more movies are coming out each year and more money is being made. Oops.

The way Lynton tries to get around this is by not actually talking about how many movies are coming out, but just counting the number of movies that came out of "the leading studios." I find this quite amusing, because in the podcast we discussed last week involving Paramount's Scott Martin, part of his argument was that while the big studios were fine, the independents were all suffering and fewer movies were coming out because of it -- and, as a "fan" of independent movies, he found that sad. I didn't bother to check the numbers, but it appears that Martin was simply wrong. More movies are being made, and it looks like an increasing percentage of them are coming from smaller independent shops.

The problem, again, seems to be that the folks at the movie studios (just like those at the record labels) only like to count the big hits as successes -- rather than the smaller projects that actually make money and make up the majority of the actual market. It's the same sort of thinking that makes movie studio people insist that we need to explain to them how they can keep making $200 million movies. That's the wrong question. The question is how do you make profitable movies. The technology has advanced such that it's cheaper and cheaper to make movies (which is why we have more of them). But notice that the studios never focus on ways to make movies in a more economical way, but how can they keep spending. Perhaps that's a bigger problem than "online piracy."

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Kind Of Industry Sets Up A Group To Purposely Limit What Consumers Want? Apparently Hollywood

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Jack Valenti ran the MPAA for an astounding 38 years, and was an amazingly effective lobbyist. Listening to pretty much anyone talk about the job he did -- whether they were on his side or opposed him -- you hear nothing but admiration for his skills as a lobbyist. Of course, he was wrong about almost everything, pointed the movie industry in the wrong direction multiple times, and did a lot more harm than good. He claimed that the VCR would kill the movie industry. He insisted that fair use does not exist. He practically ruined a bunch of movie awards shows by forbidding studios from sending out DVD screeners to the awards judges, since he was afraid they'd put them online. And, of course, he insisted that file sharing was terrorism designed to kill the industry (just like the VCR, obviously).

Still... he was a media and Congressional darling and could talk a great game. Amazingly, when confronted with his "Boston Strangler" comment years later, he actually had the gall to insist he was right about his comments on the VCR -- even as the industry was making more than 50% of its revenue on video sales and rentals.

Given all that, you had to imagine that his successor, Dan Glickman would have tough shoes to fill. And, indeed, to date about all that Glickman has done is repeat the same ridiculous claims as Valenti, but without the colorful and charming language. We've been hearing rumors for a while that the movie studios have been quite upset about Glickman, and may even look to push him out before his deal is up next year. Greg Sandoval, over at News.com is apparently hearing the same thing, and notes that the studios recently pushed the MPAA to totally revamp its antipiracy operations, upset about the way things had been handled.

Now, if you were hoping this meant that it was going to take a more reasonable stance to online file sharing and new distribution methods... you'd be wrong. Apparently, the complaint is that the MPAA hasn't done enough, because file sharing has only become more of an issue. It would appear that the studio folks don't seem to realize that this is inevitable. The answer isn't to demonize it, but to look for ways to take advantage of it. But, that's not what they've done. They've put new folks in charge and decided to stop calling it the "antipiracy" operation. Instead, it's the "content protection" effort. Both are absolutely the wrong way to look at things. If they're looking to protect the unprotectable, they are going to fail. Instead, they should be setting up a group that looks at how to use these new technologies to their advantage, rather than setting up a division that pretends it can stop the constant tide of progress.

We've been hearing from more and more movie makers who are recognizing how treating their fans right, while giving them a reason to buy is a much more effective means of reaching an audience than starting off on the assumption that everyone is a criminal. The movie business has always been based on selling ancillary products. Marshall Loew recognized this years ago, when he said: "We sell tickets to theatres, not movies." Yet, for years, the industry has done everything it can to treat its biggest fans like criminals. FBI warnings about punishment before movies. Searching people as they enter a theater and demanding they leave their cameraphones outside. Making the theater going experience less enjoyable. The reason the industry has faced problems isn't "piracy" but because the studios themselves never learned to treat customers right. Setting up a "content protection" division is like setting up a "performance limiting" group at a car company, or a "picture scrambling" group at a TV company. It's about purposely limiting what the technology allows and what consumers want. It makes no sense at all.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Beginning Ruby Author: Publisher Wouldn't Let Me Give eBook For Free... So Pirate My Book (Sorta)

from the obscurity,-piracy dept

pistol alerts us to an interesting post from Peter Cooper, the author of Beginning Ruby, where he breaks down how he gets paid for the book, including the advance and royalties, giving a nice clean explanation of how authors get paid for their books. It's pretty typical, but nice to see a clean breakdown.

But what's a lot more interesting, is towards the end, he describes the negotiations over the second edition of the book, where he begged his publisher, Apress, to offer the ebook version for free, believing (strongly) that it would promote sales of the paper book. He even notes that the original version's ebook barely had noteworthy sales, so it seemed reasonable to offer up the ebook for free to drive more attention. No dice. Even though Apress has done that with other similar titles, it wouldn't agree. So, his response is to tell people that he doesn't mind if you download unauthorized copies of the book... even if he's not sure what Apress would do:

My reaction to seeing other Apress books getting the free, electronic version treatment is: I'm good with you pirating my book! Now, of course, I can't actively participate in pirating my book but, heck, it's around on plenty of "free e-book" sites and on RapidShare. There are even links on Twitter to torrents like this. I am happy for you to pirate my book, but I'm NOT A LAWYER, and I can't guarantee what Apress would do about it - so you'd be doing it off your own back! So, uhm, don't pirate it? ;-)

He also goes on to point out that, technically, he owns the copyright on most of the content in the book, so there may even be a loophole there:

Now, according to my contract, I own the copyright to the entire book except for the cover, table of contents, and the indexes. My contract also states that I have exclusively allowed Apress to publish and reproduce my content. So.. I suspect that if you took my book, removed the cover, contents and indexes, and turned it into a PDF with a cover of your own creation, Apress couldn't do anything about it because everything would be my copyright. Now, I cannot allow you to do this, but I would not pursue you or enforce my copyrights if you did ;-) So, er, don't do it!

Of course, something is seriously wrong with the way things are set up when an author has to go behind his own publisher's back to tell people to "pirate" his own book. Eventually publishers will begin to recognize how to embrace new business models, but until then, it seems like it may be quite a struggle for many publishers (there are, of course, a few exceptions -- and, for you supporters of Baen books, yes, we know about them, no need to keep pointing them out).

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians

from the say-what-now? dept

Singer Garth Brooks got some attention for sorta kinda unretiring, and in answering some questions he made some bizarre comments about how the government doesn't protect musicians from piracy:

"Our government's not doing anything about piracy. Until we can hear what a day of radio is like with no music, until this place sits silent because the music creators and the artists and copyright (holders) are not happy because they're not being protected like everyone else is, then, yeah, I would like that power myself. It has to be placed in the right hands, so it can't be one person, but a board that represents music, its creators and its content owners. I think that'd be more than fair to stand up and say, 'Look, you've ignored us, because there's 50,000 of us and 300 million voters. You've ignored us, and now to show you, we would like to just simply stop for a day,' and see how dry this world gets."

Really? This is the same government that has only increased copyright protections over time and never decreased them (never). This is the same government that has both Republicans and Democrats repeating the RIAA's bogus stats on piracy. This is the same government that allows the RIAA unprecedented access in terms of setting the copyright agenda of the nation. It's hard to see anything that the government has done that "ignores" artists in favor of the rights of the rest of the country. I can't name a single thing.

And I'm curious as to what he means by "they're not being protected like everyone else is." That's also not true. Copyright has been twisted to grant more rights than everyone else, in that it allows copyright holders to control what happens to works after they're sold. In many ways they get extra protection from folks in any other line of work.

Finally, he seems to assume that the only reason people create music is because of these protections -- and yet, as piracy has increased, so has the number of musicians and albums being produced. So, if he wants to create some sort of union that goes on "strike" for a day, I would imagine that there would be a massive influx of indie musicians (I guess they'd be "scabs") more than willing to get their music on the radio instead.

The problem is that for the vast majority of musicians who are not Garth Brooks, the bigger issue is obscurity, not piracy. Having those big name musicians take themselves out of the competition for even a day would thrill plenty of smart musicians, giving them a chance to get attention normally reserved for the Garth Brooks' of the world.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nicolas Sarkozy Caught Mass 'Pirating' DVDs; Time To Kick Him Off The Internet

from the see-ya-later-nicky dept

Why is it always the adamant defenders of silly policies like kicking people off the internet for copyright infringement who are later found to be mass infringers themselves? French President Nicolas Sarkozy, of course, was the first major politician to support the concept of kicking people off the internet for copyright infringement (more commonly called a "three strikes" rule). He took credit for coming up with the idea originally nearly two years ago, and pushed very hard for the law -- which eventually passed but was then tossed out as unconstitutional in France. Sarkozy still stood by it and helped bring back a revised version.

Of course, in the middle of all this, there was a bit of irony in that Sarkozy was caught using music without authorization in some online videos, for which he paid a €30,000 fine. Of course, it now appears that may have just been the tip of the iceberg. Boing Boing points us to the news that Sarkozy's administration has been caught mass "pirating" DVDs of a documentary about Sarkozy. The publisher of the documentary only made 50 copies. Sarkozy's "audiovisual services" group happened to make itself another 400 without permission -- even replacing the name of the original publisher on the cover.

Once again, this should be a "teachable moment," to point out to Sarkozy and other supporters of such plans to kick people off the internet that the issue isn't quite so simple after all. When you're on the other side, sometimes it seems perfectly natural to make a copy of something, without even realizing it's potentially infringing. Unfortunately, why do I get the feeling that Sarkozy won't change his stance one bit -- or even recognize the irony of the situation?

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What To Do When Artists Who Otherwise 'Get It' Freak Out Over 'Piracy'

from the wait-it-out dept

A few weeks ago, reader cofiem sent over a blog post from musician Darren Hayes complaining about recording studios shutting down and blaming "piracy" for it. This morning, our submissions engine is getting overwhelmed with submissions about Wil Wheaton's rant against someone who posted a copy of Wheaton's audiobook, saying the guy is "stealing" from him.

Of course, we see content creators complaining about "piracy" or falsely claiming that it's "stealing" all the time -- but these two cases are slightly different. They're both cases where the content creators seem to be folks who otherwise actually do seem to "get it." They both do an amazing job connecting with fans, and setting up smart "reasons to buy." Hayes, for example, created a DVD "collectors' item" to go with his latest album. And he has a fan club setup, that encourages fans to pay a small fee to get all sorts of valuable (scarce) extras, beyond just the music. Wil Wheaton, of course, has been online for ages, and really interacts with lots of fans, and when he released his audiobook he made it cheap and didn't put DRM on it at all.

In other words, these are both the sort of content creators who are doing all the kinds of "right moves" that we talk about all the time, and seem to be getting rewarded for it. So, of course, it's disappointing to see them overreact and go a bit on the ballistic side when they see people sharing their works in some format -- but it's not that surprising. It's a perfectly natural reaction if you're not immersed that deeply in thinking through the long term implications of these things to simply not like it when people treat your works in a way other than you intended. There's nothing really wrong with that.

However, the question then comes up about what should be done about it. How do you respond to such people? It seems the smartest thing to do is to openly explain the other side of the coin: how these efforts can be embraced to further all of the really smart things that these content creators have already done. It's about getting them to realize that as scary as "the new world" is, one of the things they have to come to accept is that they can't necessarily control what others end up doing with their works. They can't dictate the terms by which fans will be fans. But, what they can do is try to put in place systems and models that benefit them when such things happen. Use that free sharing to encourage people to become stronger, more committed fans, and open up new places and opportunities to potentially offer them a reason to buy -- on their terms -- down the road.

It's never a huge surprise when someone who hasn't thought through this stuff carefully starts ranting about pirates and "stealing." But when it's someone who otherwise seems to get it, the situation is more one of disappointment. However, in most cases, those folks are at least open to listening to reason, and listening to their community, who can explain back to them ways in which they can benefit, rather than complain or blame. And, in fact, with Hayes, it looks like he took some of his community's words to heart and noted that there can be future models where "piracy" isn't necessarily a huge problem (though he's still unsure of how it works). Hopefully Wil Wheaton will listen to his community as well -- and let them point out how many other authors who have put their works online for free have seen that it tends to increase their fan community and increase sales over time.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..