Beta
×

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!

Hollywood Agent Ari Emanuel Wants a Magic 'Stop Piracy' Button

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-two-they're-small dept.

Piracy 269

closer2it writes "At this week's All Things D conference, Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher invited Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel. He spoke about things like TV not dying, cord-cutting being some kind of myth, and that googlers are smart guys and they should do something about the stealing of content. Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him (video) on this point, asking: 'Aren't you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?' Emanuel didn't like this analogy, and even ended the reply asking Topolsky where he works. Mike Masnick also wrote a piece about the interview. I guess that if the Internet has enemies, I'd say Emanuel gives them a face."

cancel ×

269 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'd like a pony while we're at it. (4, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187911)

If the "Googlers" are smart guys, doesn't that only show you'd have to be stupid to support the entertainment industry's view of how content should be bought, sold, and used?

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (5, Funny)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187949)

Ah, clarification...he didn't say that he was smart enough to actually *listen* to the "Googlers"...just that they are smart people.

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188211)

Thank you for using my real name ... asswipe I really hope I find you on the road some asshole .. because he is Douchebag Cunt and run it before you. I do not care who you are, you do not have a piece of shit in the street! You are a loser fucking nigger, you have nothing and have no insurance? Oh, your mom must be proud of you. What needs to be a responsible adult. Well Dick, I'm not going to sit here and throw insults at you, as I still class much more than that.
But let me tell you that you found on the road .. I have to take a mother fucker .. Should I run these streets and ass fucking be. Eat fat hairy cock!

>

70661 27272 30881 93496 32208 42630 58248 37953 98837 16186 17254 14050 23663 68265 81342 95228 53571 78542 77070 08045 15118 20458 04436 52502 81747 67456 36885 02041 06573 46094 00973 09777 36480 29813 96700 22595 71470 71729 24067 40494 64656 18727 56516 16590 62925 97364 47162 97769 19390 07641 42889 10586 54380 22999 43698 55043 47566 69997 02705 31140 45835 48634 66793 12318 02300 58911 62520 25136 37289 74270 89887 69593 30476 21267 22336 19131 28744 99905 12982 26867 58652 10182 08709 39685 20199 25540 09518 57584 13386 72538 68524 33681 11654 51175 32612 14859 41562 61452 28340 27676 03109 03368 55707 72133 96296 50366 88155 48230 94564 29004 52243 29408 24472 12722 47971 42226 86019 54639 75338 86683 79206 01637 34344 36221 77474 80274 98432 43957 07382 63993 94160 56775 68929 05909 21527 01232 62116 52907 53975 50771 60384 31544 18063 31949 90292 41821 13791 44766 51839 57180 41158 89223 45026 04177 73606 65320 43294 82815 64252 46498 73201 93092 59979 59316 34749 08450 60788 03773 27935 55448 19795 53311 26204 34085 83883 61048 56111 44362 79610 73865 17659 59720 06977 18322 10845 33276 39426 67861 09114 11913 30072 49039 39021 95632 25799 61857 00568 37549 26608 06314 67197 84546 85615 82410 92023 63184 49703 63588 21931 46903 45430 76406 83478 88819 72797 20863 50107 35817 05245 70402 74933 14454 69333 78138 04841 24731 65061 90955 66388 40089 92428 35412 33017 87087 51434 84951 57843 65725 15522 66129 87751 76001 11250 05505 49298 91360 38617 23404 15927 38358 71065 99500 40753 16995 35153 80678 70661 27272 30881 93496 32208 42630 58248 37953 98837 16186 17254 14050 23663 68265 81342 95228 53571 78542 77070 08045 15118 20458 04436 52502 81747 67456 36885 02041 06573 46094 00973 09777 36480 29813 96700 22595 71470 71729 24067 40494 64656 18727 56516 16590 62925 97364 47162 97769 19390 07641 42889 10586 54380 22999 43698 55043 47566 69997 02705 31140 45835 48634 66793 12318 02300 58911 62520 25136 37289 74270 89887 69593 30476 21267 22336 19131 28744 99905 12982 26867 58652 10182 08709 39685 20199 25540 09518 57584 13386 72538 68524 33681 11654 51175 32612 14859 41562 61452 28340 27676 03109 03368 55707 72133 96296 50366 88155 48230 94564 29004 52243 29408 24472 12722 47971 42226 86019 54639 75338 86683 79206 01637 34344 36221 77474 80274 98432 43957 07382 63993 94160 56775 68929 05909 21527 01232 62116 52907 53975 50771 60384 31544 18063 31949 90292 41821 13791 44766 51839 57180 41158 89223 45026 04177 73606 65320 43294 82815 64252 46498 73201 93092 59979 59316 34749 08450 60788 03773 27935 55448 19795 53311 26204 34085 83883 61048 56111 44362 79610 73865 17659 59720 06977 18322 10845 33276 39426 67861 09114 11913 30072 49039 39021 95632 25799 61857 00568 37549 26608 06314 67197 84546 85615 82410 92023 63184 49703 63588 21931 46903 45430 76406 83478 88819 72797 20863 50107 35817 05245 70402 74933 14454 69333 78138 04841 24731 65061 90955 66388 40089 92428 35412 33017 87087 51434 84951 57843 65725 15522 66129 87751 76001 11250 05505 49298 91360 38617 23404 15927 38358 71065 99500 40753 16995 35153 80678 70661 27272 30881 93496 32208 42630 58248 64511 25395 42744 43812 40608 50221 94823 07900 21786 80129 05100 03627 34603 41676 47016 30994 79060 08304 94014 63443 28599 33131 72652 27531 36335 63038 56370 23258 49153 98028 98287 50625 67052 91214 45285 83074 43148 89483 23922 73720 24326 45948 34199 69447 37144 80938 49557 70256 81601 74124 96555 29263 57698 72392 75192 93351 38876 28858 85469 89078 51693 63847 00828 16445 96151 57034 47825 48894 45689 55302 26463 39539 53425 85210 36740 35267 66243 46757 52098 36076 84142

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188035)

I thought a pony was 25 pounds.
Why not ask for more?

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188987)

Just get your pony off BitTorrent.

"You wouldn't download a pony"?

Fuck that, of course I would.

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (1, Offtopic)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189255)

Sadly, the 3D printing of living animals will still be a bit further away than the 3D printing of cars and handbags. Still, we need only wait and technology will provide us with many new ways to pirate livestock!

I remember when MLP was mindless link propagation (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189441)

You can already get ponies on BitTorrent [google.com] .

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188237)

Yeah, but this is former whitehouse chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel's brother and is far richer and better connected to politicans than you are.

He might not get a magic button, but he's more likely to get something acceptable to him than you are to get a pony.

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (0)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189029)

I would love to have seen Rahm and Ari as kids around the dining room table.

"Mom, pass the fucking bread".
"Get it your goddamn self, Rahm".
"Dammit Dad, Rahm keeps kicking me!"
"Shut the fuck up and kick the bastard back, Ari!"

Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189813)

And men in hell want ice water.

Do they get it?

Hell, No.

Both sides as bad? (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187969)

It seems like both sides were just shouting in each other's direction, not actually answering the points being made. Google are not the copyright police, but they do block child pornography. Come one, answer these points, make your case instead of just repeating yourself.

To be fair the host needed to step in and moderate too. Is this what passes for a debate?

Re:Both sides as bad? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188025)

Google doesn't block child pornography, Google tries to block child pornography. There's a big difference. They can block the terms typically used to search for child porn, but there's no way that Google could block it without actually looking at all the pictures and checking IDs.

And unfortunately, that would be a crime as there's no mens rea requirement attached to child porn charges.

Re:Both sides as bad? (2, Interesting)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188397)

Presumably it isn't illegal to have the checksum values of child pornography. Couldn't the police issue these to Google, so that if their bots crawl illegal content, those sites can be removed from their search results. The URLs for those sites could then be passed back to the police.

This wouldn't be a "magic button" though. Content can easily be hidden.

Re:Both sides as bad? (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188615)

Two problems:

  • It would have unintended consequences. Anybody could take down all of Wikipedia by uploading kiddie porn to one page.
  • It would not solve the problem. The kiddie porn websites would simply add random EXIF tags to the porn so that the checksums no longer match.

In short, any such technological measures are at best useless, and at worst can cause nearly unbounded harm.

Re:Both sides as bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188859)

Don't forget censorship. If a lot of checksums are submitted and images are not stored or analysed the system can easily be abused to block more than child porn.

Re:Both sides as bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189049)

Did you read the post you're replying to? What do you think his first point was regarding wikipedia?

Re:Both sides as bad? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189707)

Replying anonymous for obvious reasons.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Time Warner, Verizon, and every other content and pipe provider in the US as well as a rather long list of other first world countries *already do this.* It's by congressional mandate. All checksums/suspicious chatlogs/emails/groups with even a hint of possible child pornographic content is already forwarded on a daily basis to a certain US-based non-profit. Number of "reports?" About 50,000 every six months in 2007 down to every three months in 2011.

How about defeating the checksum? Easy, sure, if all you relied on was the checksum. Individual images (and increasingly video) are run through software that automatically "examines" photos to see if they're generally the same. Individual pixels, resizing, color shifts, and other similar changes will *NOT* freakin fool it (actually, it's pretty rad if it weren't so creepy). The idea ultimately is to be able to have a series of photos taken in a room with, say, the same coffee table and then be able to automatically pull any and all photos who have that coffee table, even if the photos don't have the same subjects.

How well does it work? Pretty fucking well. As a final note, *this* is precisely the reason why I always rolled my eyes when I saw anti-pornography censorship bills. Fact is, you don't *NEED* those because the current infrastructure is SHOCKINGLY good at grabbing real pedos.

Re:Both sides as bad? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189269)

The problem might be bandwidth and laws. The crawlers would have to download every file found on every site they visit, then calculate the checksum. So they would generate a pretty heavy load on the sites they visit AND they would likely be guilty of copyright infringement, since many of the files that are 'available' for download are copyrighted.
At least I assume that automated downloads are still illegal, even if you then remove the copy.

Re:Both sides as bad? (2)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189221)

Also, it's worth mentioning that Google doesn't control the Internet. They can purge child porn from their own search engine, but that's different from blocking people from accessing it.

Re:Both sides as bad? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188201)

They were shouting because they were confused. The on-stage guy was confused by the fundamental structure of the Internet and how it works, since he clearly doesn't understand the role of ISPs and search engines, while Topolsky was confused by the child porn red herring that had absolutely no applicability whatsoever.

Topolsky's followup article makes it clear that you can still find child porn in Google search results, so the argument being made by the on-stage guy was invalid even before it got out of the gates. The article also makes a great distinction: child porn, no matter where it's coming from, is illegal, which is something that cannot be said for copyrighted material. Just because Google notices that something is a piece of copyrighted material, it doesn't mean that it's an illegal use of it. It might be a legitimate distribution from the owner or a licensed distributor. It might be within the terms of fair use. It might be in the public domain. Google has no way of knowing, considering anyone can create copyrighted material at any moment without having to register it.

And it wasn't a debate. Those were questions from the audience following the interview.

Re:Both sides as bad? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188203)

>>>Google do block child pornography

They do? I've found plenty. (Mostly nudity but that's still considered "porn" in some persons twisted reality.)

And this Ari guy is the type who believes reality can be denied just by pretending it doesn't exist. "Comcast lost almost 10 million subscribers last year, and 25 million over the last five years." - "No they didn't." I think they call it cognitive dissonance; an unwillingness to accept reality because it doesn't fit your belief system.

Re:Both sides as bad? (4, Insightful)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188359)

One of the links answers this question directly. Child pornography is easier to police because it is absolutely illegal. You can block searches for it. You can develop algorithms to scan images and videos for it. You can target it without pause or question. Copyright is more vague. Is it in the public domain? How do you know? Is this particular case fair use? Considering that Lenz v. Universal ruled that copyright holders can be financially liable for issuing DMCA requests on fair use creations, this is a real issue. Is this a licensed use of it?

Given that nobody really knows what "fair use" is in the digital age, building a system for filtering copyright is impossible on the fair use issue alone. Even if that issue was settled, then Google would have to run every image and video through a database of copyrighted works and they would have to know who has permission to use the works.

Re:Both sides as bad? (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188807)

It's all true...but what's missing is the fact that Google already does police their content for them, using the ContentID system they volunteered to create, a system which has already shown us (many times) how legitimate the concerns you list are.

Re:Both sides as bad? (2)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188981)

Yeah, I have to say Josh was so proud of himself for asking his question he really didn't seem interested in hearing an answer. Usually when you ask a question you then shut up for a second and let the other guy (no matter how wrong his answer is) say something before talking over him.

It was just two egotists talking to the crowd/themselves, neither to the other.

Re:Both sides as bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189361)

Sides? No, there's no sides here. Ari wants to defend one law by breaking another. Regardless if he's incompetent, that doesn't mean we can break one law to try to defend another (the law being broken is the general reference to our freedom of information and how we choose to use the internet, and the law Ari is trying to protect is hollywood's property being 'stolen'). There is also a whole other level here that Ari would likely never address, because his head shoved too far up his ass, and that is that there is an unwritten social consensus that we care more about our freedom than these companies bottom line. Plus there's http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html [ted.com] Where's your TED Talk Ari?

jew vs jew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40187977)

doesn't this emanuel guy realize google is jew owned and operated? why is he attacking his own people? shouldn't he be shaking down goyim owned bing instead?

Re:jew vs jew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188545)

Imagine a nation whose people who work together by day to take from everyone else, and against each other by night to take from each other.

With todays Hollywood (4, Insightful)

axlr8or (889713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40187983)

I'd hardly call piracy theft. I think I would call it taking out the trash.

im certain (5, Informative)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188007)

that should such a button ever come into existence, its largest affect would be upon the RIAA and MPAA themselves.

why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont. trailers are designed to hype the films premise by any means; whatever it takes for the dog to bite. I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater. I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.

I pirate music much less rarely; no thanks to the RIAA. the bands i like let me give them money directly. I recently bought a box-set from the band red-flag. it came on a USB drive in the format i can use, and even included cool remix tracks. as for the artists with catchy riffs and melodies but no real characteristic to appreciate, i can justify pirating from them for a few reasons. The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.

Re:im certain (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188241)

why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont.

Your solution here is Netflix.

The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.

So you hate the artist, hate his music, hate his art overall, but still like it enough to pirate. And since you'd never buy from him, you haven't hurt his earning one whit. Son, you're badly conflicted here.

Re:im certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188873)

What if you don't live in USA?? There is no netflix or similar service here and there is also NO LEGAL ways for me to watch my favorite tv series, as they are simply not aired on any network here in Norway at all.
What then?? I would happily pay for such a service, but for now I am a evil pirate/terrorist that apparently deserve to be locked up.

The only other option is to wait for the dvd/bluray set to be released in my region which sadly does not always happen either.
Even if it is released I like to see if it is worthwhile to buy first, which is impossible when it does not air on tv.

Re:im certain (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189481)

Netflix no, LoveFilm yes [lovefilm.no] .

Re:im certain (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189843)

You know, you could not watch it....

I don't get why it's so hard not to watch them.

Re:im certain (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188949)

Ah... ever heard about this place called not-USA?
For all your Hulu and Netflix and innovative services like that, we get jack shit. So when we are told to go away from those, we go where they don't care where we're from: thepiratebay. Thanks for playing.

I want Spartakus (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189505)

Your solution here is Netflix.

When does Song of the South or Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea come to Netflix?

Re:im certain (5, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189731)

Your solution here is Netflix.

Why is that his solution? He already *has* a solution, it's called piracy. He's invested in it, has the equipment and the skill to use that solution. Now you're suggesting he should scrap a working solution and replace it with.... a more expensive, partial solution that may cause extra inconvenience?

Netflix is at best an alternative that may or may not be around in a few years time, and could be ruined by a change of management. Piracy is not only a proven solution by now, it also has the advantage of staying power. If you've pirated a favourite DVD ten years ago, you will be able to watch it in ten years time with your kids. Can you honestly say that every movie that was in Netflix's catalog ten years ago will be available as-is in ten years time from them?

One thing people never discuss enough is that with piracy you get private ownership, just like when you buy some physical good in the store. Whereas the commercial digital world is all about renting everything and owning nothing. One day you have the right to watch or listen or read something, and the next the company is gone, or your credit card has expired, or your computer is b0rked, and *poof* it's all gone forever. It's highly unreasonable.

Re:im certain (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188263)

why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont

Self serving nonsense. Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.

And you can subselect within that to follow frequent reviewers that look for what you look for in movies. I'm sure there's other places for good reviews as well.

I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.

Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.

Re:im certain (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188473)

I stream to my xbox 360 just fine with a 13 or so year old pc. 1.6ghz AMD with 512 DDR. Pretty simple and requires no more cables than i already had. Honestly its much simpler to browse through movies in a digital list format than dvd cases. Not having to move my tv big CRT tv to plug shit in is also a plus. And i have all my media through my xbox so its all right there. Very nice, very convenient. I have way different reasons than that guy for pirating which you may or may not agree with. But its easier to stream from my pc than to set up any sort of player.

Re:im certain (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189713)

I have way different reasons than that guy for pirating which you may or may not agree with. But its easier to stream from my pc than to set up any sort of player.

Yeah, sure, if you spend considerable effort in advance to setup a PC and Xbox, and are going argue that going through the relatively minimal one-time effort to setup a player is now too much.

Honestly its much simpler to browse through movies in a digital list format than dvd cases.

Tell my Mom that. :)
Its more powerful, and once you know how to do I'd even agree that its usually preferable, but its not really "simpler".

Plus a blu-ray disc in even a half decent player is higher quality audio/video than what your 1.6GHz AMD + xbox 360 are doing -- provided home theatre setup is equipped with a decent size HDTV and better than absolute junk surround sound. (I'm not talking audiophile/videophile nonsense.)

Re:im certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188999)

Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)

Yes it is. Far better. A bluray player can only hold one item. My computer holds hundreds of TV shows, movies, and music. I can stream from Youtube, Hulu, Netflix or from all sorts of other content providers. Titles are easy to find, instantly available, and feature none of the unskippable nonsense found on bluray disks. Furthermore, my PC only cost me $175.

Re:im certain (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189563)

Furthermore, my PC only cost me $175.

Then I seriously doubt it has a bluray player in it, does DTS7.1 surround sound, hdmi/dvi digital output.

I'm also skeptical that a 5 year old kid or grandma, or the babysitter can just use it...

I don't disagree that an HTPC is a great thing to have. I have one myself. But I don't pretend its is simpler to use than a disc player.

Re:im certain (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189151)

Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.

"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.

Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.

He already has the PC (which may be far more important than a bluray player). Not everyone has an infinite amount of money, you know.

Re:im certain (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189853)

"correctly"? It's a subjective matter.

Of course. But
a) Its not rating everything 9 or 9.5 out of 10 the way some video game sites do, where even the greatest stinker of all time gets an 8. Rotton Tomatoes has tons of stuff rated below 20/100...

And even if you don't agree with the consensus, like i said, there are probably sub-groups that align with what you like, and you can selectively follow that.

Re:im certain (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189691)

Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.

You do realize most of us would still have the PC for gaming and surfing and coding and whatever else we do right? So the only extra cost I had was the HDMI cable. It's one device less so less cable clutter, it's less shelf waste - I have a collection of discs and they're all collcting dust. And I can put it on my laptop or iphone or ipad, I can easily have a backup, browsing a folder is easier than searching through discs. I'm not going to make a mountain out of a mole hill but in an ideal world I'd still pick having my movie collection on a PC.

Re:im certain (2)

rtechie (244489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189935)

> because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables

Not true. A $50 Blu-Ray player won't have an internet connection and so won't be able to update the firmware to play the latest discs with the latest copy protection (updated yearly). It is for this reason that every Blu-Ray player other than the PS3 is basically garbage.

This argument is sort of missing the point that the primary technical problems with DVD and Blu-Ray are:

1) Being forced to watch trailers or menus with no option to skip.

2) You can't (easily) back up them up. Especially Blu-Ray.

3) For security reasons, Blu-Ray executes in a JVM which is slow and buggy. Plus the aforementioned firmware issues.

At least properly mastered Blu-Ray discs (relatively few) have the advantage of being true High Definition (as opposed to fake streaming HD, like Netflix) content. And that's still relatively difficult to pirate being 40 GB and all.

Re:im certain (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188267)

>>>I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater.

Exactly.
Even candybar makers like Hersheys and Mars issue refunds if the product is unsatisfactory (just return the unused portion). I don't expect theaters to issue refunds, but why can't Hollywood do the same if I return a crap DVD? Or issue a store credit? It's a sad state of affairs when low-end candymakers offer better customer service/satisfaction than the rich guys who produce movies.

>>>the bands i like let me give them money directly

I thought about doing that, but then I realized I'm cutting-out all the important people who ALSO helped make the music: The audio engineer, the extra instrument players, and additional backing vocals. The only way those people get paid is to buy the CD or MP3
.

Re:im certain (3, Informative)

crgrace (220738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188569)

I thought about doing that, but then I realized I'm cutting-out all the important people who ALSO helped make the music: The audio engineer, the extra instrument players, and additional backing vocals. The only way those people get paid is to buy the CD or MP3

Those people are work-for-hire 99.9% of the time. They get a fee for their day's work and that's it. They don't get an additional royalties for sales. Once in a blue moon an engineer can get points on a release (i.e. royalties) but only if it is a rain-maker like Flood or something, and guys like that aren't hurting for your change.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do, but I agree that it is better to buy from the bands directly.

Re:im certain (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189741)

But if people stop buying CDs or MP3s (and just hand money direct to the bands at concerts) then audio engineers, extra instrumentalists, and backing vocalists won't be hired at all for the studio productions, because those CDs/MP3s will no longer be made. Those people will be laid off. Which is why I buy the CDs or MP3s.

Also I disagree that backing vocalists don't get royalties. If I recall correctly Paula Abdul started as a backup singer on Janet Jackson's songs, and she collected a small royalty check for every single or CD sold. By handing your money direct to Janet at a concert, you're cutting out Paula from her fair share. (Perhaps not the best example, but it's the first thing that popped in my head.)

Re:im certain (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188767)

Normally when I directly give money to a band (at their merch table, staffed by themselves and their road homies) those other people are all there (being the band themselves and/or their road homies).

I don't think it's possible to give money directly to major commercial acts.

Re:im certain (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189037)

Road homies...? They should shorten that down; like maybe "roadies" or something.

Re:im certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189241)

Dude, the mastering engineer gets paid per job not per sale. If the CDs a huge hit or a total flop he gets paid the same. Same with session players. Now if the CD goes to be a big hit and you played a flute solo or whatever on a track and it's credited in the CD you'll be getting a lot of calls for work but you don't see any of the sales money.

Re:im certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188401)

I want a single button that say 'Print Money".

Re:im certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188613)

it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all

Proof or you're lying.

And no, "so-and-so liked some movies I didn't" is not proof.

Re:im certain (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189885)

I'm taking this off on a tangent because of this - because most people don't know you *can* get a refund if you don't wait until the end.

I pirate because its more reasonable to delete the movie i hate, than to expect a refund after having sat through it at a theater.

If you walk out before a half hour is up and say "this movie sucks" you can easily get your money back.

CSB time:

Go see movie with GF. Not sure what to see
We pick something that looks interesting. Some art movie or something, avoiding all the Hollywood stuff.
Walk in, get ticket, sit in theater. Simples.

10 minutes later of dark sepia-toned silliness, because sepia-tone means art.

THIS IS THE MOST CONFUSING AND DISTURBINGLY BAD MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN

"Let's watch 5 minutes more to see if this makes sense." - Because it appears to want to make sense but for all the tea in China, can't.
Appx 20 minutes of that goes by

Fuck it. Walk out

Walk to cashier, ask for refund. It's 35 minutes into the movie. Cashier calls over manager.

"Typically we don't give refunds after half an hour. Also, didn't you see the article in The Eye? It really is a terrible movie. Always read The Eye."

No, we hadn't read The Eye. Lesson learned.

Manager: "The movie sucks. Give them their money back."

To this day I don't remember the title of the movie. It was so awful that I have subconsciously blocked it from my mind. /CSB

--
BMO

Trade you! (5, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188039)

How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?

Re:Trade you! (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188181)

How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?

Can I trade you my "EASY" button for that? It's big and red.

Re:Trade you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189077)

I would gladly stop all my alleged pirating if that meant I'd have to no longer endure the aural holocaust that is Adam Sandler.

Somebody (5, Funny)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188041)

Somebody is responsible for me feeling annoyed right now, but who do I blame? Slashdot for posting the story, Emanuel for being an idiot, or.. it's me, isn't it?

Google should just BUY the entertainment industry (4, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188053)

...and give it marching orders. Use the entertainment industry to sell computers and to generate internet revenue.

"Give them the razor, sell them the blades" by buying out the razor factory.

Re:Google should just BUY the entertainment indust (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188367)

You know, at the rate they're going, Apple will be sitting on $200,000,000,000 within a year...

Don't have a problem with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188097)

I don't have a problem with what the guy said tbh. He's basically stating that the economics don't make sense for him to want to change how things are done. Fine. You keep doing what you are doing, and I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

Topolsky (0)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188101)

I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.

Re:Topolsky (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188157)

I watched the video. I don't agree with Emanuel's perspective, and I hate to say this, but Topolsky got his ass handed to him. He presented a weak argument, and Emanual ripped it apart. Topolsky's not wrong, he just failed to bring a decent argument, and was basically laughed out of the room.

And just how does a weak argument equate to not being wrong? If the facts demonstrate a weak argument as being wrong, I would expect them to do the same to a strong argument as well.

Re:Topolsky (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188261)

I don't think the problem was Topolsky's line of thinking. It's that despite his motivations, he brought a knife to a gun fight. Despite being right, he still got his ass handed to him because Emanuel was so confident, to the lay person, he looks right.

Re:Topolsky (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188477)

No, you're wrong. And stupid.

See what I did there? With your (lack of) logic, I just handed your ass to you.

It's quite a statement about you and your inability to look beyond peacock feathers and assholery. Friendly suggestion: don't pick science or any field where ideas are more important than bluster for a career.

Bluster leads to votes (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189579)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

It's quite a statement about you and your inability to look beyond peacock feathers and assholery.

It's not maccodemonkey's inability as much as the median voter's inability.

Friendly suggestion: don't pick science or any field where ideas are more important than bluster for a career.

Bluster leads to votes, and votes lead to legislation.

Re:Topolsky (2)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188325)

There is no general correlation between a weak argument and being not wrong (or a strong argument, for that matter). There is just the fact that in this particular instance, the argument presented was a weak attempt to make a particular point. And while others are criticizing Emanual for simply bullying in response, if you listen, he actually made an argument in response which Topolsky failed to counter, despite it also being a weak argument.

Re:Topolsky (3, Informative)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188195)

Really? You must have been watching a different video.

Topolsky's argument and analogy made sense. Emanuel didn't have a counter argument so he resorted to name calling and bullying from his self-styled throne. He was in a room full of his cohorts and admirers, and he had an obligation to listen and present an intelligent response. He didn't.

Sorry, but bullying only makes him look like an ass.

Re:Topolsky (4, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188617)

In the video I watched, Emanual absolutely had a counter argument.

Topolsky said "they (Google) aren't policemen, they don't police things" and Emanual responded "no, they decide when they want to police something and when they don't want to". He went on to discuss how Google is actively filtering child pornography, but refuses to actively filter copyright infringement. Topolsky had no response to that other than to mutter "I don't know" and then go back to the road analogy and talk about tearing up the road. However, using his analogy, Emanual was not arguing that the road be torn up, just that since the road is already being policed for one bad thing, then it should also be policed for other bad things.

The argument that Topolsky should have brought was that, first of all, Google doesn't filter child pornography, so Emanual's premise is wrong. Secondly, child pornography is always illegal (at least in the U.S where this debate was occurring), so any instance of child pornography is, by definition, an instance of illegal child pornography, whereas an instance of downloaded content is not necessarily an instance of illegally downloaded content, so the filtering is different. Basically, the nature of the content in question is that it must be self-policed.

Re:Topolsky (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189081)

Topolsky thought his analogy would be a knock out punch, he made the rookie mistake of not having thought about possible counter arguments before he spoke. What we saw in the video is the proverbial tale of the blind men and the elephant [wikipedia.org]

TV won't die if it's free (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188115)

But I'm certainly not going to pay Comcast or any other cable company $70/month for 70 channels that rarely have anything I want to watch. (Even Syfy is now filled with reality junk... having canceled their last sci-fi show.)

I might be willing to pay for a la carte. Say $8 for any 20 channels of my choice. Somewhat similar to how Sirius XM radio works ($8 for 40 channels).

And Just Why...? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188125)

And just why do you want to know where I work?

So that you can complain to my boss that I made you look stupid and that he should fire me for that?

Re:And Just Why...? (4, Informative)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188299)

And just why do you want to know where I work? So that you can complain to my boss that I made you look stupid and that he should fire me for that?

No, he wants to know where you work so he can complain to the politicians that your company is costing his company money.

Which is exactly the strategy that Cary Sherman of RIAA [internetevolution.com] suggested when SOPA failed.

If it's about "Hollywood vs. freedom", Hollywood loses.

But if the debate can be reframed to "MPAA vs. Google", or "RIAA vs. Telcos", Hollywood wins, because they can just point the finger and say "Look, we're only saying the things we say because we work for Paramount, Universal, and other MAFIAA organizations. But you're only saying that because you work for Google, a telco, or an ISP, you're a lobbyist just like us!" and with the debate framed in a context that the politicians will understand, Ari and Sherman can easily demand a law that transfers wealth from "Northern California" to "Southern California" (by transferring the cost of preventing piracy from "Southern California rightsholders" to "Northern California companies whose customers happen to infringe on those rights").

In serious denial (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188173)

No cord cutting? There's no reason to pay outrageous cable bills anymore, and it's no secret.
I suppose he's been hitting his "please make all this progress stuff stop" button too much and imagining that it's been working.
I'll just take a "profit!" button myself.

Bundler (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188209)

He's a registered hard money 'bundler' [opensecrets.org] ($132,813 on '08) for Obama.

Happy Friday.

Re:Bundler (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188255)

Also brother to Obama's former Chief-of-Staff. Who is currently the Mayor of Chicago.

In other words... (1)

captjc (453680) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188229)

Old man yells at clouds. How is this a story?

do you ever et the feeling (3, Insightful)

woollyreasoning (2645455) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188291)

that some people have no idea about how the world works ... that they so profoundly have no grasp on the shared experiences of the rest of humanity that the world falls outside the field of the comprehension and has problems more pressing then shit that affects you consider perhaps people you don't distribute or market your goods to directly MIGHT enjoy seeing them... that the systems and restrictions you bring to a market place are the reason people are seeking alternatives

Painful to return to Cable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188303)

My wife and I cut off our tv for a few months out of a cost-savings measure. The cable company kept offering us really good, (if slightly misleading deals), and we eventually bit, and discovered that we didn't actually watch it. With DVDs / Blu-rays, video games, Netflix, and various corporate streaming services, cable was always the inferior option, and never got used. It's downright painful to return to Cable after using Netflix as a primary TV provider. Netflix is certainly lacking a number of things, but as new productions are coming out with streaming services in mind, the rights are actually getting easier to get for the streaming services, which are becoming more and more robust.

Re:Painful to return to Cable (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189623)

With DVDs / Blu-rays, video games, Netflix, and various corporate streaming services, cable was always the inferior option

How do you watch collegiate or professional sports if the game is blacked out online because it's being shown on national or regional pay TV? And what would be a good substitute for MSNBC's Morning Joe Brewed by Starbucks, which one of my relatives claims is worth $60 per month to her?

can we just say it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188347)

can we just say it, jews are destroying the internet.

My Wishlist (2)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188431)

A 'Stop Crap' button for the lame films they spew.
A 'Stop Bay' button to make him stop ruining my childhood like a TNT wielding GLucas on crack.
A 'Stop Lucas' button while we're at it.
A 'Stop Gouge' button that makes a movie night cost me less than or equal to what I make in it's equivalent running time.
A 'Stop Loss' button that refunds me the price of admission, snacks and reimburses me for my time when the only good parts of the feature appear in the trailer in their entirety.
 
There's more, but I figure Santa can get started on these and I'll get the rest to him before Christmas.

Th world 20 years from now... (4, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188435)

The last few seconds pretty much sums up Ari's shortsightedness. A man from the audience is explaining that what happened to the music industry (how Apple saved the failing business model) and Ari agrees with that, then the man from audience asks if he doesn't see the writing on the wall, that this is going to happen to TV soon, within 20 years. Ari's answer is that he'll be fine with that, he'll be 71.

This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality. In the digital age it is folly to let these idiots lead the content industry. They're concerned about immediate profits, with no regard to what will happen in the near future.

People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything that is expected to last more than a mere 20 years. If you want your business to fail within 20 years, then Ari is your man. Ari is a death sentence to a company.

Re:Th world 20 years from now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188605)

People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything that is expected to last more than a mere 20 years. If you want your business to fail within 20 years, then Ari is your man. Ari is a death sentence to a company.

Problem is, these are the same people who are forever extending copyright limits.

only 20 years would be reasonable.

Re:Th world 20 years from now... (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189263)

This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality....People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything...

It's a problem in a lot of industries. "Who cares what happens in 24 months? In 6 months, I'll have gotten more in bonuses than most people will see in their whole lives. If it ruins my company in 12 months, I have a golden parachute."

Immature (3, Interesting)

epp_b (944299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188455)

What a childish and arrogant attitude of entitlement.

Next time, someone present it like this. (4, Interesting)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188493)

Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.

I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.


First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography.
2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose.
3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.

Now comes the obvious question.


So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.


Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.


Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.

Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.

Re:Next time, someone present it like this. (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188671)

Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling

As far as I can tell, this is the primary form of communication used in his family.

Another analogy (2)

jmactacular (1755734) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189355)

Another analogy that fits better is this.

Is it Verizon or AT&T's responsibility to police phone lines for someone who might be planning a robbery with another robber over the telephone? Is it the phone company's responsibility to do a criminal background check before handing out a phone book full of address information? Google is just a 411 service for the internet. And internet service providers just provide the pipes.

Really wish Josh would have thought it through more, it was an important televised moment to speak truth to power, in this whole piracy debate.

Zionist Hollywood (1, Insightful)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188499)

Mirrors Zionist Israel for its attitude towards critics.

Consequences of a fake tan (4, Insightful)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188609)

At some point, should the amount of fake tan you apply disqualify your opinions from consideration?

Just a thought.

Guys who build roads will tell him the same thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40188699)

They may be smart engineers, those guys and gals who build the roads, but they will also tell him there is no simple and foolproof way to stop criminals from driving on roads while letting the non-criminals continue to drive safely and unimpeded.

A somewhat better analogy would be to compare Google's search tools to a phone book. There's no easy way for the phone company to determine which numbers are for an ordinary residence versus ones for a drug dealer, unless you want to accept continual, real-time surveillance of everyone. I'm sure Hollywood would say "Yes, do that" as long as they weren't the ones paying for it (i.e. taxpayers were footing the bill or phone customers were).

Compared to those costs a pony wouldn't be a particularly expensive add-on.

This web is magic! (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40188755)

There exists a certain kind of person who will think that when you do something with computers, you are some kind of genius and a genius is almost a wizard if not a warlock or something. It might SOUND like awe but you can hear them linking it with witchcraft and selling your sole for a demonbuggering you.

Sometimes, praises ain't praises at all. Googlers are smart guys sounds a bit to much like Jews are really good with money, White people got all the jobs and Blacks sure got rhythm. Quick personality test, which of these made your blood boil? Mmm, interesting...

But where your grandmothers world views might be relatively harmless (where was she during the holocaust or lynchings etc etc) this guy uses it to put the blame for all his whoes on another group of people. Consider this: You can blame your high fuel prices on the oil companies, big money, Illuminati etc etc. This is straightforward blaming (and usually gets racist sooner or later). OR you can say, those motor company guys are smart guys and they can build a fuel efficient 3 ton SUV for you to drive alone... AND the unvoiced part here IS: but they ain't, so those guys must be in cohoots with the former guys who are controlling the entire world.

In short, this praise of googlers is NOT praise but saying really: They could fix it if they wanted to but they don't want to.

Pretty nice since this needly sidesteps the challenge of proving it can be done. Simply, they are smart, they can do it, if they wanted to and they must.

The problem this guy, Ari Emanuel faces is that he can't deal with the idea that world changes. Not just faster computers, bigger SUV's etc etc but that our culture, our idea of who we are, what we value, how we live, how we entertain ourselves, our morals, EVERYTHING changes over time. Copyright as it exists now, did NOT always exist in its current form. It was introduced quite recently and then it was introduced because tech (printing and music recording) were changing the world.

BUT that is just the shallow end of the changes made a hundred or so years ago. How many of you got an instrument you play with regulatory for your enjoyment? Wink wink, nudge nudge know what I mean

What I mean of course is that the sale of musical instruments has plummeted, once if you wanted to listen to music, you made it yourself. For hundreds, no thousands of years. Long before any copyright existed to "protect" music. In fact copyright was not introduced to protect musicians or even song writers but to protect music PUBLISHERS. Recorded music, first pianola, later wax cylinders etc changed all this. But it changed far more then just how music made its way around. How many in your youth went to a disco... okay, wrong place to ask BUT think about this, going to a disco or dance is basically the same thing but how normal do you find it have LIVE music playing? When there was no recorded music, far more people played to entertain others outside the home. Now only a few even play inside the home.

Recorded music has been killing MUSIC!

And yet, we SURVIVED!!! Society did NOT collapse. This was feared every time culture changed, the end of theater because of the movies, the end of the movies because of TV, the end of TV because of the VCR.

Culture survived! Might it also survive a new change? An era in which entertainment is once again produced differently? Think about cover bands. They are NOT a new thing but with recorded music, people for the first time had an idea of how the original sounded. Cover bands just USED to play popular music they heard in one place in another by just listening and changing it ever so slightly. That is how many a folklore story got changed and yet remained the same. (Yes, that too is part of mass media entertainment, just a different era). The idea that ONE company, one performer can now set how ALL other performers of a similar product are judged against the "original" is quite new. Quick, Snowwhite, the little mermain, picture them. If you can't help but see the Disney version in your mind as the true version and would be thinking "this is not right" if you watched another version, then you proven my point. And yet, culture survives!

The problem currently with copyright is that its laws are just to easily circumvented...

Not, this ain't right. The PROBLEM with copyright with its laws is currently going straight against the flow of our culture. People have ALWAYS re-used existing content in new ways and now it has become ever easier and we have a huge desire to copy. I don't just mean copyright infringement by making a digital copy. Once if you heard a musician playing and you wanted to play it at home, you had one listening before taking out your instrument at home and giving it a go.

Now, you can have the sheet music in front of you, tracks with your part taken out and play along with the music slowed down until you gotten better. But OOPS! That is STEALING! Even singing along is STEALING! People must have been copying music from each other for ages, how else did folk music survive, but only now has they idea come into being that this is WRONG! That such music belongs to one person and not to any who hears it and reproduces it.

Now, try to think of a place where still to this day, the unlicensed performance of a composers work is done on a routine basis every weekend... That's right, sport stadiums and religious buildings all over the world. The national anthem and gospel songs are performed without the performers paying a royalty! Without being payed themselves! No, I am NOT just talking about the choir and whatever 15 minute celeb has been chosen to sing the Anthem badly. I am talking about ALL the members in the audience singing along. ONE GIGANTIC EVER REPEATING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

Yes, those composers are long death, a fitting sentence for their crimes, but another song, happy birthday, that in some of its forms IS STILL UNDER COPYRIGHT and Air Emanuel and his chums want paying for it.

Every time someone makes a home video with some music in the background, they want paying. When someone records natural bird song, they want paying.

But this goes beyond greed, it goes as a direct attack on OUR culture. Music and other forms of Entertainment are OUR, all of us, culture, they make us who we are just as much as Pyramids made the Egyptians and gladiators made the Romans who and what they were. (From historical evidence it seems gladiators held a similar role as modern entertainers, both revered and reviled at the same time)

I remember when I was very young that at sports meets, they used to play Star Wars music during the award ceremonies. That music had become PART of culture and was being used in it. Does that mean George Lucas deserves payment everytime goes "The rant is strong in this one", yeah, just like you thought right now.

Deserves? Maybe. Can he have it? No. This ain't about right and wrong, moral and amoral. It just isn't possible to police 6-7 billion people everytime they might be copying or re-using something someone else has created. When youtube adds an insane amount of content per second, who can check if someone didn't leave their radio on while taping their cat and recording it too.

This is not about information wanting to be free or artist deserving to be paid, this is about what we can and cannot enforce with laws in our society. Ari Emanuel takes it for granted that big content needs to be produced with big budgets and consumed and payed for in big amounts... he is right... it must. He is WRONG in thinking that it is without question that our society will continue to do that. What he can't even think off is that all this might just have to collapse that with the impossibility to stop copyright infringement because of how we can and do consume entertainment, that how content is produced, might just have to change.

We no longer grow our own food. This is the way things are. Once it was very different. Things changed, the world changed, we adapted. And now we are adapting again by some starting to grow it again and all the time nobody grew food anymore little parcels of lands we handed down in big cities were people grew food. No new agers, you are doing nothing new. Allotments, very old hat.

My point? Yes, I know, I am ranting BUT my point needs a bit of a setup because to a LOT of people, it goes against the way they understand the world.

Payed for entertainment might die off, every single artist in the world could starve tomorrow and everything would be just fine. I am saying this is not about how much Madonna deserves to make but that her very existence is irrelevant to human beings. Someone, somewhere, somehow will produce music and it will be our new culture. Maybe that person will be payed, maybe not. Art survives. If it can survive cultural revolutions and holocausts it can survive the dead of copyright.

The media industry might die but this will not be the end of entertainment. It just will be different.

We got two choices, either put a massive and as yet non-existing brake on our culture to keep the mass media alive OR let it go and see what evolves from it.

I say, let it go. Yes, this will mean a huge shift. Or it might not. But the idea that some smart googlers will just come up with a method to fundamentally change our consumption and use of culture and the facilitation of that consumption is just silly.

But hey, so is the war on drugs or the war on porn. So why not war on piracy. I predict it will be just as successful... well, it is not like it could possibly be a bigger failure.

Someone will sell him a magic button (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189025)

That's part of the problem. There's people who tell him all the reasons it won't work, but he doesn't want to hear that. There's other people who don't bother telling him unpleasant truths, and instead just sell him a magic button, and when that doesn't work, sell him more magic buttons.

You have to admit, the magic button vendors have it figured out. They get to make money, AND cheat the RIAA out of their hard-"earned" money.

Frustration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189085)

Come on people, this is pretty low. Clearly this "Emanuel" understands very little about the internet and is exhibiting frustration at this point. It doesn't help that the people talking with him are spouting the standard sound bytes rather than trying to teach him what's wrong with his reasoning.

The real enemies here are the people who understand that it's either liberty for the common man or money for the media industries and are doing everything they can to ensure the latter. I might hope for some kind of compromise myself but even the most basic liberties are incompatible with most anti-piracy systems/ideas.

He came across well (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189131)

Not someone you would want as a doctor for sure. What an arrogant, self-important jerk. But what do I know; he's much richer than I am, so he must be right.

So nice to see validation... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189149)

I have always though that Hollywood executives were completely Idiotic Morons with an IQ around 85.

And this guy has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.

Please hollywood, keep hiring and showcasing complete idiots like this guy. It means you will not see the end coming and will stand there off guard and blindsided when the bitter end whips and smacks them in the face.

If cord-cutting is a myth... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40189287)

If cord-cutting is a myth, then why is my cable company currently offering me free TV service for a year? I stopped paying for TV years ago, and they keep trying to entice me back with increasingly good deals. Why bother if I'm one of a few rare weirdos, and everyone else is still paying?

And yet ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40189443)

Topolsky's being somewhat disingenuous too. Google is not merely a road. The right analogy is that Google has a bunch of agents driving around, and is printing maps of houses that have unlocked doors with detailed lists of the times when no-one's home.

For example, a few years ago when I wrote a book, the first 3 pages of Google hits for the title were links to PDFs that people had put on download servers. The actual link to legitimately buy it wasn't 'til the 4th page.

Now, I'm not saying it's a simple problem. I know that Google didn't put those copies out there for download. But they profited from ad revenue while showing people how to get the book illegally.

You can bet any amount of money that if I managed to get a copy of Google's internal source code including the Page Rank algorithms and posted 'em on my blog, they wouldn't be linking to that! (and hey, I wouldn't be stealing, 'cause they still have the source! And I wasn't going to buy it anyway, since they won't sell it, so how could they have lost revenue? etc etc).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>