×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Pictures CEO Thinks the Net Wasn't Worth It

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the neither-was-coming-out-of-the-trees dept.

Sony 562

rossturk writes "Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment, said, 'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.' Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.' It's become customary to expect a somewhat limited perspective on things from old-world entertainment companies, but his inability to acknowledge that the Internet has changed everything makes me think he's a very confused man. Is this when we all give up hope that companies like Sony Pictures can adapt? Will we look back on this as one of the defining moments when the industrialized entertainment industry lost touch for good?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

562 comments

1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3.??? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980905)

'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'

Well then I trust you personally don't use it at all.

It's become customary to expect a somewhat limited perspective on things from old-world entertainment companies.

Relax, he's just one voice of a thousand at Sony.

Is this when we all give up hope that companies like Sony Pictures can adapt?

Frankly, I've got enough problems of my own to be concerned with their problems. It is and has been for quite sometime an adapt-or-die scenario for these guys. If they haven't figured it out, you won't see me shaking my fist up at the sky screaming "WHY!? Why couldn't you take me instead of Sony Pictures!?"

This guy should talk to his own people more often--Sony's CEO and chairman Howard Stringer said in a recent interview [nikkeibp.co.jp]:

Customers will refuse to accept it unless the technology is open. Youth in particular really dislikes closed technologies, closed systems and the like. I think the failure of AOL LLC of the US is good evidence of this. When the Internet was just beginning to spread, AOL boosted its subscriber base by providing special services only to its customers. After a while, though, customers began rebelling, complaining that they weren't children. Because AOL wanted to keep them locked up in a narrow portion of the immense Internet cosmos, open technology was created. Sony hasn't taken open technology very seriously in the past. Its CONNECT music download service was a failure. It was based on OpenMG, a proprietary digital rights management (DRM) technology. At the time, we thought we would make more money that way than with open technology, because we could manage the customers and their downloads. This approach, however, created a problem: customers couldn't download music from any Websites except those that contracted with Sony. If we had gone with open technology from the start, I think we probably would have beaten Apple Inc of the US.

Instead of that kind of level headed talk we get to hear from Mr. All-My-Customers-Are-Criminals.

Ride that ship to the bottom of the sea, Michael Lynton.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980973)

Criminalize Customer: Their really does seem to have been a massive switch to this. The customer should really be the boss the only one a company should have to please. But it appears more and more like the big companies view customers as the enemy to be accused, lied to, and forced to pay them.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (-1, Offtopic)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980997)

I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet. Period.'

"Period." is not a sentence. I guess we can expect this lack of grammatical acuity from the same type of person who doesn't have enough imagination to use the internet to increase his company's profit. It's called "innovation". Sony should replace this guy with someone who grasps the concept.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (4, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981327)

It's short for "I emphasize the finality of the preceding sentence by drawing attention to the period", and it's a complete sentence [straightdope.com]. The long form is too much effort to read and type so normal people use the abbreviation.

So STOP me you motherfucker, motherfucker (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981353)

And pry this here internet from my cold dead hands, you motherfucker, motherfucker

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981315)

Might have something to do with more and more people stealing their stuff? There is no business that can handle all of their stuff being stolen.

You're doing it wrong (5, Funny)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980975)

1. Reject Technology

2. Criminalize Customer

3.???

You're only supposed to use the ??? when the next step isn't obvious. Since 'Buy off legislatures to support your failing business model' has been their tactic for years, it's not a very secret step.

I Was Going to Do it Right (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981177)

1. Reject Technology

2. Criminalize Customer

3.???

You're only supposed to use the ??? when the next step isn't obvious. Since 'Buy off legislatures to support your failing business model' has been their tactic for years, it's not a very secret step.

Actually, step three was going to be "Sacrifice Month-Old Baby Bunnies on an Altar to Baal" but there seems to be a limit on the length of the subjects for these comments ...

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981021)

Criminals... like hiding rootkits on CDs with no notice kind of criminals? I guess All-My-Corporations-Are-Criminals too.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (5, Insightful)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981031)

' Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'

I do think there's an entitlement problem. I just think it's the other way around. You have these old dinosaurs of the industry who've been the gate keepers of media production for so long, they don't know how to react to a little competition. Think about it; some guys are probably out there running a torrent site at a loss, while using ad revenue to stay afloat. Meanwhile, these guys are sitting on the actual copies to the media don't even bother because 1) it will compete with their existing revenue model and 2) it's probably harder to justify 20-30$ to resell movie when your marginal costs are ~0$. Thing is, these guys will either have to take control of the distribution and make a profit of it, or someone else will.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981043)

Instead of that kind of level headed talk we get to hear from Mr. All-My-Customers-Are-Criminals.

Ride that ship to the bottom of the sea, Michael Lynton.

Media distribution is essentially an oligopoly/cartel and 'shrinkage' used to be small and manageable.
It used to be that theft = theft. Now theft = infringement.

He's really just unhappy that the old distribution model is fucked because:
1. the internet lowers the threshold for infringement and
2. their distribution model (even with all the internet stuff they do) only partially meets consumer demands

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981089)

No, theft has always been theft, and infringement has always been infringement. Legally they are, and for practical purposes always have been, two very different things. The fact that you did not understand copyright law does not mean anything has changed.

Your point 2 is what everybody else has been saying: If they can't adapt, they can't adapt. Other companies have. But if they are unwilling to supply what the customers want, they have no special exemption from going out of business, just like everybody else who does not keep up with the times.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981121)

Everybody else like big banks & car companies?

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (2, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981171)

The banks weren't supplying what customers wanted (low interest rates, solid financial foundations, sound business management). The car companies were not supplying what customers wanted (affordable, quality cars with good gas mileage and without planned obsolescence). So... what?

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981307)

So they weren't left to suffer the consequences of their poor business decisions, they were propped up with public money instead.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (3, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981185)

Actually, I think he's saying that it's the companies that are saying "theft = infringement." Even if he isn't, I'm saying it now. You'll notice pretty much none of the *AA cases are focusing on "they stole" but "they're breaking copyright, thus infringing on our property." (or at least that's how they're presented in the media, which is as good as presenting the case that way, in the public's mind) Piracy's still theft. It's not "copyright infringement." Copyright was supposed to be about preventing others from using your work to their financial gain, thus reducing your profit. That's why derivative and fair use are in there as acceptable. Most pirates aren't out there selling the copies, they're acting more like a library, making the materials available for others to take. If you wanna liken it to criminal activity, it'd be someone shoplifting a DVD and then passing it around to all their friends to have a look. Most pirates are just simply missing the personal gain factor that would make it a true copyright infringement case.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981111)

'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'

Well then I trust you personally don't use it at all.

He's CEO of Sony Pictures, he can afford to buy all the pr0n he needs.

Probably gets 10% off music & movies too.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981151)

Sony doesn't need to adapt. The Sony CEO has correctly characterized those internet users who are firesharers of copyrighted media/who want everything for free. (Without the internet the piracy operation would be limited to physical media and smaller private networks.)

Plain and simple, the worthless userbase the CEO has properly characterized needs to understand this:

NOTHING IS FREE. GET OVER IT AND LEARN TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU OBTAIN, AND STOP REPRODUCING AND REDISTRIBUTING PAID MEDIA FOR FREE!!!

If you want music, you pay for it, whether downloaded or on media. Once you have the music it does not give you the RIGHT to share UNLIMITED copies over the internet for other freeloading users.

Movies, also see #1. Oh, but as soon as there is ANY sort of DRM many want to break it, of course, for UNAUTHORIZED reproduction and redistribution.

Copyrighted books, again see #1. Your single purchase for *YOU* NEVER allows you to reproduce and redistribute UNLIMITED copes over the internet for free.

If a member of the worthless userbase violates copyright law, then they deserve to pay the penalites and there simply no defense (e.g., but... but... they didn't *profit* from it) if they are actually guilty of the act they are charged with doing.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (1)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981197)

Howard Stringer's quote, not yours, but...

Youth in particular really dislikes closed technologies, closed systems and the like.

And yet, Facebook.

Re:1. Reject Technology 2. Criminalize Customer 3. (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981333)

...Only because FB doesn't seem closed. The moment that FB starts actively enforcing some sort of closed policy, is the day that you see a mass migration to a new networking site.

FB has an avalanche that can happen to them, once a few friends start leaving, the person needs to create a new account to keep in touch with them, that person who ends up liking the other site more (for whatever reason), leads to more people going over to the new site until FB becomes like MySpace (or Friendster) and dies.

Say hello to the new economy, Mikey. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980933)

This, presumably, from a free market wonk who thinks the law of supply and demand are best for everyone. Go ahead and meet the demands of your consumers, damn it!

Exactly. (4, Insightful)

warrax_666 (144623) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981079)

"Oooh, I don't understand how this newfangled Internets works, so let's just say it's eeeeeevil!"

When will they stop these dinosaurs from running the industry?

Re:Exactly. (5, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981291)

"When will they stop these dinosaurs from running the industry?"

Aside from the generational die-off you young'uns out there need to thin your own herd to stop these shitbags from respawning.

The kids tripping on acid during the Summer of Love mostly turned into fear-freaks who relentlessly elected NeoCon Evangeliban to office.

If you want something different, be something different and don't sell out. Take the ideological fight to the enemy. It ain't just about downloading mass-produced pop culture shit you shouldn't want anyway... :)

Re:Say hello to the new economy, Mikey. (4, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981081)

As someone who makes a living selling things online I have to think the Internet is pretty good. Of course competitors and even some manufacturers don't like the Internet because it cuts margins and makes it hard to maintain dealer areas.

Oh? (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980937)

,'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.'

I say we spam him with goatse until he repents.

Talking about entitlements (5, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980939)

I know how he feels about entitlements, really.

Some people have unbelievable ideas about what they're entitled to. When I find an artist who actually believes he's deserves to be paid until death + 70 years, then I get that same feeling, like nothing worthwhile ever came out of that artist. At least nothing without a rancid aftertaste.

Re:Talking about entitlements (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981113)

It's not the artists who lobbied for life + 70 years, it was the labels. Disney, in fact, was one of the biggest pushers of this change, because lots of Mickey Mouse cartoons were due to pass into the public domain. They couldn't have that! So Michael Eisner (and some friends) went to work on Congress to change the law.

Re:Talking about entitlements (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981201)

Yep. Disney's the one pushing the hardest for extensions in the US. Every time Mickey's about to go public, they get another 20 years tacked on.

Talk about your mickey mouse laws...

Re:Talking about entitlements (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981235)

I wish it was true that it was really just some big evil corporations that were behind this. But I've read enough in trade journals etc. to know that there is broad support for "as much as we can get away with" in copyright issues - not just length of terms, but spyware, DRM, anything.

Re:Talking about entitlements (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981147)

I think that's the taste of your own bitterness, kiddo. Just because you're culturally irrelevant and incapable of negotiating a similar contract doesn't mean that everyone else is.

Re:Talking about entitlements (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981193)

"culturally irrelevant" as opposed to you and your basement/myspace project, I suppose?

Artists are replaceable, just like the rest of us.

Re:Talking about entitlements (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981237)

When I find an artist who actually believes he's deserves to be paid until death + 70 years, then I get that same feeling

Forget the artists.

(Their distributors certainly do! badum-chunk)

Re:Talking about entitlements (1)

mftb (1522365) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981275)

Music artists with copyright hahahahahahahahhahhahaa (i'm crying on the inside)

Sony Loosing Ground (5, Informative)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980943)

Given that Sony recently posted its first loss in 14 years [bbc.co.uk], I think perhaps it is time for them to get with the new modes of media distribution instead of keeping its head in the sand and decrying them.

Re:Sony Loosing Ground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981255)

While it certainly should be getting into new modes of media distribution, Sony's loss is mostly due to the strong yen, which caused its costs to soar on equipment build in Japan and sold in the US at a time when the worst economic recession since the Great Depression was murdering sales.

Sony actually *is* getting into new modes of media distribution. For example, you can buy digitally distributed movies from PSN, or you can also buy Sony produced movies from Amazon Unbox right now.

Re:Sony Loosing Ground (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981335)

I think that anybody on his right mind would say "nothing good came out of the Internet". He was probably referring to the whole copyright / movie distribution situation, which isn't doing good for their business (as they seem unable to adapt, too bad).

But given the original article is lacking context... it's no surprise someone would blow it out of proportion and post it here.

Ironic (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980945)

I find it quite ironic that this was said by a CEO in Sony, a company that came to its riches and fortunes by facilitating copying. Sonitape was the sneakernet of the 50s.

Protectionism (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980947)

This is more of the protectivist thought that has lead and is leading to the decline of these old school companies and allowing the growth of new companies to challenge and pick them apart.

These companies have the resources, man power, and product to dominate large portions of the media if they would only embrace it and adapt to it. Change is a scary thing for large organizations to take on, especially voluntarily.

The best part is the first thing they taught me when I started getting my MBA was that change was good and needed to be managed, not prevented. You would think these business types would eventually catch on.

Of course this is Sony, the Captain of the DHFB(Dead Horse Flogging Bandwagon).

-Lifyre

Adaptation on business models (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980949)

No large entrenched business likes to change their money making scheme, especially the media industry. For most of the 20th century the media industry has remained pretty much static in the way they did business. Sure technology and quality gradually changed and got better but distribution and marketing stayed the same. Now you have the Internet, a way for people to interact with media without going through the usual channels and the media companies are freaked. Digital formats make sharing music easier than before and trust me, sharing music has always gone on, just not as easy or on the same magnitude. What the media companies need to do, and eventually will do kicking and screaming, is actually adapt. They cannot keep distribution artificially low because files can be copies infinitely all over the place. When a majority of people don't see a problem with ripping CDs, downloading music, and using portable music players, instead of trying to criminalize everyone, it is time for the companies to change. They are a bunch of smart guys, I am sure they will figure it out (unless their proposal comes down to "bailout?").

What have the Romans ever done for us? (5, Funny)

bheer (633842) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980953)

What have the Romans ever given us in return?
  -- The aqueduct.
  -- And the sanitation!
All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
  -- And the roads...
  -- Irrigation...
  -- Medicine... Education... Health...
  -- And the wine...
  -- Public baths!
  -- And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
  -- Brought peace!
What!? Oh... Peace, yes... shut up!

Someone should really update this for the internet. And immortalize this idiot's name as the dunce who asked the question...

Why Buy It When You Can Steal It:?+1, True (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980955)

And the biggest example of that is WAR CRIMINAL [whitehouse.org].

I hope this helps the planned deportation to The Hague.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

I have given up on Sony (5, Informative)

stox (131684) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980959)

They used to make quality products, not so much anymore. My latest experience is the last straw. Last year, I purchased a Sony navigation unit. I soon found that the maps were outdated, and missing major landmarks, and even an Interstate highway that had opened the year before. Support assured me that the next update would solve these problems. Well, after many months, an update has finally been released for the mere price of $99. So, in other words, Sony wants me to pay another $99 to fix what was broken from the time they built the unit. I consider it a lesson learned, and will not longer purchase Sony products.

Re:I have given up on Sony (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981095)

I stopped buying sony about 2 or 3 years ago. around the time the rootkit stuff came out, the bad oem batteries, the sony vs sony vs the rest of the world (is sony making cd recorders AND music? which sony are we to listen to, then?)

their bd is a DRM nightmare that I won't ever fund (blanks, burners, readers, etc - I want NO part of any of it).

about 10 yrs ago, sony was 'the shit' to have. now its the shit NOT to have; or rather, its the company NOT to fund.

they don't get it, they haven't 'gotton it' for a long time. sony has chosen sides and its not the side I'm not, so I boycott them. until they change their tunes, so to speak.

Re:I have given up on Sony (4, Interesting)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981107)

I agree. I've had some other sony devices that didn't live up to their billing. They've really become the GM of the electronics industry. They were once a great company that made lots of really high-quality products, but have lost their focus and now are approaching irrelevancy.

Re:I have given up on Sony (5, Interesting)

Archaemic (1546639) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981213)

I know I've given up on Sony laptops at least. I purchased a Sony Vaio SZ right as it was released, hoping it would be a good lightweight laptop that also delivered some power so that I could play at least some Windows games (when I was booted into Windows and not Linux, of course, which doesn't happen very often).

As soon as we ordered it, the warranty started ticking. If they had shipped the laptop as soon as we ordered it, that would not have been that bad. But they didn't. For about a month we waited for it to ship, because one part was consistently out of stock. Please, make sure you have the parts for your laptop in stock when you release it, okay Sony?

Well. Finally, it shipped. Okay, so now I have one month less on my warranty than I should. No. This is not the end of my story. Yes, it continues. When it arrived, with its brand new Core Duo processor, I popped open the task manager in Windows because it was acting funny and laggy. Wouldn't you know it, one of the cores was constantly being consumed by some unknown process. It hadn't been shipped with a virus--rather, the motherboard was defective on arrival. Yet more time I have to go without this laptop! So we shipped it back, and they eventually got back to us with a working motherboard. All was good, right?

Yeah, my story still isn't over. Come February of the next year, my battery just stops working. It's no longer recognized by the OS. At all. Well, okay, we have an extended warranty. But it's still under warranty. Right? Wrong. The battery was under a different warranty, which had just expired. Fine, okay, this is getting absurd, but I'll buy another outrageously priced battery. I have a laptop, after all? Come 362 days later, the battery dies AGAIN. Fortunately, this time around, I had a warranty on the battery (for three more days). Well, okay. This is getting suspicious.

Wouldn't you know it. The next year (this year), the battery died again. Very little research told me that this happens to EVERYONE. Right after the warranty expires (hopefully for Sony)...

Well yeah, in the mean time, I'd bought a new laptop from Apple and had no problems with it, so I didn't bother to replace the $200 battery again. I'm never buying a Sony laptop again. I think I had more problems that I've forgotten in the 3 years since I got the laptop, so this rant may be incomplete.

-1 Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980963)

This entire story is pure flamebait. What else would you expect a head of a media company to say? There business models are getting whacked by rampant illegal piracy that is getting more and more widespread.

This is not really news.

Re:-1 Flamebait (4, Informative)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981037)

No. Sony isn't just a "media company". It's one of the big technology companies. And it's relevant that one of the biggest technology companies hate Internet.

FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981317)

There are many almost totally unrelated companies under the Sony umbrella. Sony Pictures is the former Columbia Pictures. It has absolutely nothing to do with Sony the technology company, except both are owned by the same holding.

Re:-1 Flamebait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981173)

On the other hand, if it was some random slashbot explaining why he is "entitled" to pirate Windows, PC video games, and MP3s, it would be +5 Insightful.

spreading free software (2, Insightful)

baud123 (977365) | more than 3 years ago | (#27980967)

at least, the Internet permits to spread free software and work collaboratively (even if in different countries or even without ever meeting IRL), on free software of course ;-) that's quite an achievement AFAIC

Whatever (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980987)

I looked around to see what Sony products I products I have purchased - none. And no, I don't download or shoplift or get my media for free. If I like it, I'll buy it. Apparently, Sony doesn't make anything that I like.

But hey, I'm a guy who turned off cable and isn't converting my TVs to digital because here's really nothing on worth the price of a converter (Yes, a real weirdo!); let alone the price of a new TV. Yes, that includes PBS. I won't miss the endless Suzy Orrman and Wayne Dyer pledge drives. And what once was my all time favorite, This Old House, has turned into house porn - nothing but show casing high end stuff that I could never afford.

I believe I have one Sony product in my house... (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981149)

The only Sony product I could find in my house is my stereo amplifier. And that's almost twenty years old - it still works wonderfully,though. I wonder how many of the products their making today will last that long...

PlayStation Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27980995)

Losing money on it, eh?

Well, it all makes sense (5, Insightful)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981005)

As we all know, nothing may ever legally be distributed for free on the Internet, or in fact, anywhere. If it's not distributed by a record label, film company, or major software company, it is inherently pirated and of no value to any person and should be destroyed immediately for all our own good. Only by buying good, wholesome entertainment and software products will we be preserving the jobs which every industry worker deserves by divine right of kings. Or something.

I dunno... (5, Insightful)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981009)

Obviously the idea that nothing good has come from the internet is total nonsense. But I have a hard time disagreeing with this:

people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'

because that's exactly the attitude I hear. Maybe that's just the way things are going to be from now on, but it does bother me that so many people consider not getting a product to be an unacceptable response to terms they don't like. I guess *I* must be getting old...

Re:I dunno... (4, Insightful)

rebullandvodka (569646) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981157)

This is refrain. The music industry attempts to apply its business model to the internet, gets burned, and accuses their customer base of not playing fair. Clearly there are ways to make money from the internet, just not the way the media giants want to make it. The cat is out of the bag. There is no choice but to adapt. Innovate or go out of business.

Re:I dunno... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981299)

I guess *I* must be getting old...

Hey, relax, old dude, I'm not ON your lawn!

Re:I dunno... (2, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981303)

because that's exactly the attitude I hear. Maybe that's just the way things are going to be from now on, but it does bother me that so many people consider not getting a product to be an unacceptable response to terms they don't like. I guess *I* must be getting old...

That begs the question of whether or not those dictating the terms have the right to do so. The MPAA asks why you'd download a movie if you wouldn't steal a car or various other tangible items, but more to the point is the question of why someone who wouldn't steal a _DVD_ would download a movie. I think a large part of the answer is that the right to exclusive control of reproduction and distribution of creative works is not automatically accepted by people.

Re:I dunno... (2, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981323)

My problem is they feel entitled to charge the same price for a digital copy as a hard copy, when obviously they're making magnitudes more profit on digital sales. You need to make one copy of the file available, and then a smackload of bandwidth, vs. pressing thousands of DVDs, cases, packaging, shipping, etc. Charge me more for regular def vs. high-def files, since it's more bandwidth, and takes higher-tech equipment on the front end, fine. But if I'm buying it and downloading it, rather than getting a physical medium, I want a discount. Not even a lot. Make that $30 movie $25. Make it worth my while to get the download from you instead of from the store (cheaper) or pirating it (since most pirated copies are just the film, no special features). If your customer base feels entitled, figure out why, and bloody PANDER to that. Make it cheaper, release it earlier, include features that aren't otherwise available. Most people aren't pirates for the hell of it, or to "stick it to the man." It's because they don't feel they're getting value for what's being charged.

It's the wrong issue (4, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981011)

It's really about entertainment in digital form. Record companies and movie studios have made tremendous profits from the transition from analog to digital.

In particular, music companies were able to sell CDs that cost less to manufacture than vinyl disks and charge significantly more for them. They were also able to release CDs of older music that otherwise would not be repurchased.

In recent years they've suffered from the other consequences of digital media (e.g. the ease of copying). Yet on balance, digitization has been a net positive for their bottom line.

Re:It's the wrong issue (4, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981153)

they have run out of 'product'.

the music today sucks. and cd audio is good enough for 99% of the people out there - yet the industry invented new forms of audio, 'rich' in drm (true-hd and dts master crapola). there is NOTHING sonically better that MATTERS for movies yet we are told we have to re-buy things all over again.

blatant money grab. don't fall for it. boycott bd, hd-dvd and any new audio formats that aren't open.

and dont' EVER mix audio and video. keep your hdmi 'clean' of audio and use regular spdif for audio (its open and drm-free).

don't re-buy your 5.1 stereo - DD5.1 will be here for decades and won't be going away any time soon. resist the 'urge' to fill the bank accounts of music execs (and equipment makers!) trying to get you to re-re-buy things time and time again.

yes, the cost of making cd's (even 10 yrs ago) was a fraction of pressing a vinyl album yet they charge MORE for cd.

the industry has taken us for a ride for a long time. payback time - boycott their stuff and have them feel financial pain.

His gripe is new required customer service? (4, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981015)

That's right, the net has increased competition.. the customers feel "entitled" to companies catering to them by providing product to them in the form and price they want, and will find what they want through black marets should we refuse to provide it.

"the customers feel "entitled" to the product they want at the price they want, and now have a way to get it when we don't want to provide it, and we don't like that" - Sony Pictures.

There are certain things capitalism can't produce (5, Interesting)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981019)

Capitalism can't produce common goods. Internet would've never had existed if it weren't for the US government. It was created in an academic environment, by passionate people that cared about the advance of technolog (indirectly: of mankind). Internet advanced quickly, different protocols appeared, once replacing the other (Gopher, SMTP, HTTP, POP, IMAP, NNTP, etc.).

Then the companies came. Those set of protocols froze, some began to fade. Companies didn't care about "what's right". They didn't care about advance the network. The HTTP/1.0 -> 1.1 transition took years, and still hasn't finished (e.g. http pipelining). IMAP mail stalled, and got replaced by webmail. Multicast was never deployed at large. Newsgroups got replaced by phpbb.

These companies hate Internet. If they praise it, it's only when they realize they can't afford to ignore it (or destroy it).

Re:There are certain things capitalism can't produ (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981129)

Companies would want to charge at every step which is one reason many other networks and hypertext systems were hard to use and didn't scale well. By only worrying about making it work and not how to make money from it it was a successful project.

Interesting (1)

malignant_minded (884324) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981027)

Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it

I agree with this statement but my conclusion is the exact oposite...it is for this reason that I feel the internet is amazing

Translation: (3, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981029)

"I work in an industry where the way we make money is to rigidly and tightly control the flow of information. You didn't get to see the movie unless you paid for it. You didn't get to listen to the music unless you paid for it. Sure, people could dub VHS tapes or buy a bootleg or record things on cassettes, and we fought these things, but they were the exceptions. Now, thanks to the Internet and the free flow of information we don't make as much money as we used to because now it's easy to share information. Rather than adapt or maybe realize that our earnings are going to go down, I'm just going to wish the Internet didn't happen so I can go back to the glory days. Or maybe I'll send off for that time machine I see advertised in that magazine."

We Must Stop the Customer Before It's Too Late (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981035)

Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'

*A panting Michael Lynton enters his boardroom with Sony's Chairmembers*
Michael Lynton: *gasping for breath* I'm sorry I'm late. But I was just down in the store and I had to confiscate this.
Chairman One: Is that ... is that a Blu-Ray copy of Spiderman?
Michael Lynton: Yes, I had to confiscate it from a "customer" ... it had it in its hand as it was leaving the store.
Chairman One: The customer stole it? We have the finest security in place ...
Michael Lynton: No, far worse than that. The customer held up the product and said to me, 'Hey, Mr. Lynton, it's bullshit I have to pay $30 for this after paying $15 to see it in the theater.' At which point I realized that it intended to give this away through the internet to all of his friends.
*pauses for seriousness*
Michael Lynton: Then I tackled him and I just saved us one trillion dollars in lost profits.
Chairman Two: Mr. Lynton, we might have a problem if that person paid for this copy of Spiderman.
Michael Lynton: No, you don't understand, he had a shirt indicating he used the internet. If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is. All of them are criminals just looking at us with their beady little eyes trying to figure out how to steal from us.
Chairman Three: Sir, are you feeling alright?
Michael Lynton: I'm feeling great, I just saved us money. You know, I saw someone on the street the other day and they were fat and pasty white and I knew then that they used the internet. So I drove them down with my car.
Chairman Four: That was you on Channel Nine News last night ...
Michael Lynton: Oh please, grow up, this is business and business means war. Now, I think that if we act quickly we can hit the customer with viruses in the rootkit no one's found on our Blu-Ray media. The time is upon us to put an end to the customer once and for all, people. Think of your children! Wait a second, why do you all look confuse? Oh my god, you're all them ... you're all cu ... customers! How could I have been so blind? No wonder we are losing this war! SECURITY!

Sour Grapes (1)

NobleSavage (582615) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981051)

"I'm A Guy Who Doesn't See Anything Good Having Come From The Internet. Period." Sounds like a guy who's wife won't let him look at porn.

Get rid of that guy SONY, NOW! (5, Insightful)

el_jake (22335) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981053)

"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period." Huh? Well you have failed your shareholders miserable Mr. SONY CEO. Most of the economy is based on businesses doing business using The Internet. I think it's time for the Mr. Sony to sack Mr. CEO for total failure and having such a profound view of what good business really is. No wonder the recording industry is left behind in the net economy. *sigh*.

Who are you to judge? (1)

ray-solomon (835248) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981063)

people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it

Damn skippy! That's just human nature. I'm sure it started from the caveman years. Not everyone is as rich as you Mr Perfect CEO.

Fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981073)

You have morons like this guy running the show and then wonder why you had a billion dollar loss last quarter?

I'm a guy who doesn't see ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981115)

I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet, period.' Why? Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.'

Well, I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good coming from the movie industry, period. Why? Because they 'feel entitled' to control people's private communications when they want to, and when that doesn't happen 'for free', they'll bribe Congress do force it on us.

With comments like this (1)

buss_error (142273) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981119)

Does anyone fail to see why I have refused to buy any Sony IP that I can possibly avoid for the past 20 years? (Remember boys and girls, the mother board of your computer may have Sony IP on it in a chip or BIOS.) This kind of mind set isn't new to Sony, it's been around in a noticable form for the past two decades.

I will even nix the purchase of computing equipment if I can find the same or better equipment that doesn't have Sony IP in it and the price isn't more than 5% higher. Since my employer buys several thousand systems a year, I hope that has a small but measurable effict on Sony's profits, though it likely doesn't. The times I have had to OK equipment with Sony IP in it, it made my teeth hurt, I felt less manly, I gained weight, lost more hair, and needed stronger glasses.

Just kidding, I only felt mild disgust.

Can't blame him... (3, Insightful)

Udigs (1072138) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981127)

It's like the five stages of grief:
1. Denial -- New formats! They will protect everything!
2. Anger -- RIAA! Arrest all the students!
3. Bargaining -- Hulu? Please?
4. Depression -- You are here.
5. Acceptance.

Me thinks he's at stage 4, right now.

BUT just because his entire business is evaporating out from under him because everyone wants his products yet does not want to pay for them doesn't necessarily make him "out of touch."

It's challenging. And at the end of the day someone has to foot the bill. Or, the products need to go away. Unlike an album, movies cost millions and millions to make. As such, the costs just don't lend themselves to being covered with "internet" strategies like micro-payments and such. It's a crazy state of affairs.

And don't get me wrong: I hate all of this RIAA shit too. It's kinda like the stages of grieving.

Tales from the Ice Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981143)

"I don't see anything good having come from the fridge, period", said the man who used to deliver ice blocks door to door with his horse carriage.

Michael Lynton, you're such a lame joke...

I can sort of see (0)

R.Morton (1540993) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981163)

His point on the one hand you have honest customers on the other you have large groups of crackers who do steal their stuff.

For example all of those playstation 1,2,3 and PSP roms floating around torrent sites,usenet and such yeah I know fair use allows the user to make a backup for personal use.

But far to often this is used by cracking and pirate groups to say "I am allowed a back up man !" all the while they are uploading Terabytes of stolen data to the web in the form of torrents and some of them have torrent sites you that you have to pay to become a member of.

this is complete and total theft of IP and you can argue it anyway you want to it is still stealing.

Now on the other Hand becuase of these Jack asses you have people getting more insane amounts of hoops to jump through just to play a CD or Movie that they paid money for !. Lets not forget the persons responsible for this.

yes, I am talking about the Pirates and crackers as well as any group that actively engages in blatent theft they are why these insane laws exist although far too often I hear people say "they are taking away our freedom of making a backup !"

I agree with that but at the same time they have investors,share holders, artists, musicians and the list goes on and all of those people have a family to feed and care for just like you.

also I agree with the fact that they and other companies should respect the uses right to transfer legally purchased software to another user with all rights intact for the person who paid you for it.

But this is not going to happen at all anymore because of the as mentioned before huge groups of pirates and crackers cashing in on their hard work yeah I know what your going to say "but they charge more than it is worth man" well when you figure a company hires professional artists and musicians as well as programmers they have to pay for that ya know and these people do not come cheap ! if you want the best you pay for it !.

and in so doing Sony has to charge enough money that they can make a profit for themselves as well pay their employees it is as simple as that.

well I am going to stop here before I am flamed in to oblivion for trying to see both sides of the coin.

R.Morton

He's mostly right (4, Insightful)

robvangelder (472838) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981187)

He's mostly right, except for the bit about free.

Honestly, I'd pay somewhere between $1.00 and $2.50 for a movie, if it were HQ-5.1 and instant play, like youtube.

Because it's more convenient to download a movie, and play it on my media player than aquire and load a DVD, so I choose that medium.

The movie producers leave me little option than to download illegally.

Yes, I've seen the stores, their selection sucks.

Re:He's mostly right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981341)

$1.00 to $2.50 a movie !, and then you wanted it streamed in real you !.

it cost more than that to make it ya know not to mention the cost of bandwidth to stream it your computer!

Now if you said "I would pay $10.00 a month for that service." I would have thought you are not a little gimme gimme I want it kinda Guy.

No Wonder.... (4, Funny)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981191)

No wonder he hates the internet, he was the former president of AOL International.

Translates to: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981209)

Get off my lawn!!

hurting aristocracy always bad. (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981219)

Hurting the entitled elite is always going to be seen as bad. Do you think the drunken nobles of England welcomed the civil list? And any conservative must hate the taxing of the queen. What is next? 15% of real income instead of 30% of an artificially low adjusted income?

Here is a technology that absolutely redistributed wealth away from the lazy. Persons that can innovate today love it. People who are living off innovations two and three generations old will hate it. The hard working want to let it progress to revitalize the world. The entitled want to regulate it and make it benefit only those selected by the elite.

I May Agree (2, Funny)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981225)

I don't agree that nothing good has come from the Internet.

However, I haven't yet decided if there is an overall net benefit. I suspect that the cons outweigh the pros. I'm referring to the entirety of the impact of the Internet

Of course, it's purely an academic speculation, since it's not going away.

CEO of Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981231)

I thought CEO's of major companies had 'vision'. Isn't that what they used to say to justify their salaries?

Obviously, Mr. Lynton is a man of 'vision'. We just can't understand his ideas with our puny vision-impaired brains.

Progress Happens (1)

TheUglyAmerican (767829) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981233)

People generally don't change or adapt. Progress happens when old farts (like me) die off and are replaced by younger people with different ideas.

entitled? (1)

azenpunk (1080949) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981245)

like these companies feel towards their profits? if people dont want to pay for the product then the profits aren't deserved, the companies fold and we find other things to buy.

that's a GOOD thing, something new will come around.

the situation of scarcity that allowed this market is gone, let it fall and let a new market rise.

let all market participants succeed and fail only on their own merits, no legislation, no false scarcity.

next time you say we don't have the right to share copyrighted media go read the 9th amendment, yes we do have that right.

and if you debate this on the side of the companies don't forget that they already are getting government support in the form of corporate protection, add onto that the DMCA and all the rest the current situation is undeniably unfair to the point of being unjust.

data cannot be owned and the legal game of twister that's happened in order to try and allow it is sickening. it needs to go away.

It's Not Just Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981257)

Lets face it, this is the common attitude of large scale corporate capitalism. They think they have a "right" to make as much profit as they want, and their customers/clients have a legal obligation to pay whatever the corporate masters demand. They don't have to satisfy any customer needs, they don't have to make a worthwhile product, all they need to do is buy legislation and hire lawyers to make huge profits.

Just look at the current credit card system. They have terms of use that are crafted to trick people into paying more fees. They retroactively raise interest rates on balances. They have 30 page service policies that none of their users understand.

Don't call it capitalism. It's organized theft.

Short List of Unimportant Aspects of the Internet (5, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981267)

Here's a short list of things he doesn't think are important:

  • Posting of evidence of government wrongdoing that could otherwise be surpressed
  • Posting of corporate wrongdoing to reach a wider audience
  • Ability for home bound people to interact with society
  • Directions to a location you are not familiar with
  • Coordination of grassroots protests
  • Job hunting
  • Multiplayer computer games
  • Research
  • Easy exchange of documents
  • Family and friends separated by wide distances able to communicate
  • pr0n

Yeah, I guess he's right. The internet is useless.

Right, Wrong, and Clueless (4, Insightful)

fygment (444210) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981295)

He's Right that:

I do feel entitled to download everything I've already paid for. I will not pay for the e-version of a book I own or that is out of print. I will not pay again for a record/tape/CD I already own. And I will not pay full hardcover price for an ebook, full price for a CD with only one or two desired songs, nor hesitate to view/obtain a movie for free to avoid escalating cinema costs.

He's Wrong about the Internet:

The Internet galvanized the public, academia, and industry into pushing the bounds of technology. It has precipitated a technological growth from which the entertainment industry has benefited handsomely. Production quality has increased while its costs have decreased. Dissemination of entertainment has, thanks to the internet (and peripheral technologies), been able to greatly expand markets, enhance product marketing, tune the delivery of content, and all for a lower cost. And I still buy DVD's and CD's and go to cinemas when I think they are worth the price.

He Doesn't get that:

The audience aren't inherently criminals, they simply want a fair price for a product. And until the entertainment industry accepts that, then the audience will seek fairness by any means possible.

Retarded (3, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981305)

He can go fuck himself.
I mean, really. Does the fact the internet broke their shitty business model really make it worthless?
What an asshole to even say such I thing. I'd rather be without anything Sony ever made than be without the internet.

One more Sony Asshat (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981313)

Because people 'feel entitled' to have what they want when they want it, and if they can't get it for free, 'they'll steal it.

Get this internet users? You have been all called thieves by this guy.

Sony is a bunch of asshats. Stop buying their stuff and maybe they will go away.

That poor CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981325)

It appears Sony has failed in the management of their customers' expectations. Sony has pretty much failed at execution for a long time now. Even my lowly Dream Machine alarm radio is a travesty to adjust.

About the stealing, however, I agree. My country (America) has become a low minded, coarse, self-indulgent nation of dicks. But there's every indication that in any country that achieves our level of wealth and abundance the population de-evolves in exactly the same fashion. It's probably the nature of the human animal. It leaves hope for future (re-)improvement and it beats hell out of living in a world of donkey carts and voodoo spirits calling for the stoning of your sister for saying "Hi" on the street (if you have streets.)

In other news... (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981359)

Buggy whip manufacturers see nothing good coming from the interstate highway system.

Times that are changing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#27981363)

Masaru Ibuka, The first "Purposes of Incorporation " of Sony: To establish a place of work where engineers can feel the joy of technological innovation, be aware of their mission to society, and work to their heart's content.

Fixed that for him... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#27981367)

'I'm a guy who doesn't see anything ... period.'

It means about the same thing as what he said, and isn't as likely to annoy people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...