Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The MPAA and EFF Cross Sabers

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the no-poking-eyes-out-now dept.

401

wigwamus writes "Motion Picture Association President Dan Glickman and Electronic Freedom Foundation co-founder Johh Perry Barlow lock horns, then knock lumps off each other over the movie business' attitude to the Internet. From the article: 'These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices.'"

cancel ×

401 comments

Yep (0, Troll)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503594)

People with real world business experience going up against young idealists. Guess what? Business always wins. Always has, always will.

Re:Yep (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503638)

See the Boston Tea Party and the American War of Independence.

KFG

Re:Yep (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503660)

The American War for Independence featured two sides, each led by experienced people in the fields of business, government, and war; I'm not sure exactly how it is relevant.

Re:Yep (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503720)

I think his point was that there's plenty of occasions where the underdog has won. However, going up against big business is a painful process, whether you win or lose.

Re:Yep (2, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503751)

>See the Boston Tea Party and the American War of Independence.

That's why the tea is crap in America and good in Britain.

Re:Yep (2, Interesting)

lhbtubajon (469284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503924)

No, the tea is good in Britain because the British spent centuries raping east Asia and poisoning its people with a combination of opium, disease, and empire-building.

The Americans just decided Dar Jeeling wasn't worth living under the imperial thumb.

Re:Yep (5, Insightful)

w33t (978574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503646)

if you change one word I think your point becomes fallible.

People with old world business experience going up against young idealists

In either case, new ideas actually quite often do win.

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503658)

Look at this list [wikipedia.org] . It looks to me like the peasants have the upper hand, historically speaking. It might take them a while, and some may even die along the way, but the peasants either get their freedom or they die trying.

OMG!!! Now my stomach is turning.

Re:Yep (1)

mikeisme77 (938209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503831)

The American Revolution (and several other successful revolutions on that list) were initiated and run by, not peasants, but the wealthy middle class/merchant class. Most "peasants" tend to lack the education, training, experience, funding, etc. to successfully start and sustain a revolution. The wealthy that are not in power use the grumblings of the poor/peasantry to entice them to battle, and thus putting the wealthy people who weren't in power into power. There's a reason there are pieces called "pawns" in chess games...

Re:Yep (2, Interesting)

grev (974855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503684)

"Young idealists?"

But you know the problem is - the bad news is that you're up against a dedicated foe that is younger and smarter that you are and will be alive when you're dead. You're 55 years old and these kids are 17 and they're just smarter than you. So you're gonna lose that one.

Also, I would think that these young individuals have a greater and farther reaching influence than the corporate bigshots. Internet. SERIOUS BUSINESS (really).

Re:Yep (1)

vorstyles (813336) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503916)

The problem with that is when the young grow up, their humanitarian ideals fade away, and they embrace the business ideals of America. Those who don't are considered fringe and ignored, or chastised for their choices. A 17-year-old activist is considered a hero; a 55-year-old activist is considered a trator.

Business will indeed win. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503763)

You are correct to state that a business will indeed win. It likely won't be Big Recording, however. It will be those who can capitalize on the new music market we have today. Some of those 17-year-olds will age to become the ones who are able to make money off of the new ways of distributing content. But soon enough, they'll be the old men, trumped by the young again.

In a way, business is always the winner. It's often just not the same businesses.

Re:Yep (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503817)

Evil Will Always Triumph, because Good is Dumb - Lord Helmet

-- Spaceballs

Re:Yep (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503884)

often, but not always. with movie piracy I am reminded often of what happened in Canada many years ago with cigarettes. Big business (the Canadian gov't) lost big time on that one and the little guy was triumphant.
 
Without going into much detail, or even providing a link (i'm that lazy and at work so I shouldn't even be here) - Canada decided smokers would pay out the ass if they heavily taxed cig's, i mean heavily, i think at the time it was early 90's and suddenly the price of the dirty cancer sticks jumped a couple of dollars. they still paid. for awhile. than, oddly enough, people found some stores that sold cheaper slightly less taxed (OK, not taxed at all) cigs at some stores. Canadians liking to save money like everyone else opted for the lower cost. I inquired into it a bit and discovered that pirate rings for cigarettes had been established - in some cases it was local reserves, others it was smuggling from the US, and local stores were frequently buying quantities of cigarettes of people who sure didn't look very official.
 
the gov't saw this happening and took immediate steps to stop it that succeeded, they dropped the tax on the cigarettes and learned a valuable lesson - when you charge a lot for crap, people stop buying it. now to bring this up to today, in the article the MPAA advise that they need to pay these people salaries so they will continue to produce, i whole heartedly agree, but not million dollar salaries, if you need to make several million for working for a few weeks and can't get by without it, than screw you and the horse you rode in on. if the product was priced more on par with the value the consumer got from it than they wouldn't be having this problem.

Re:Yep (3, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503898)

> People with real world business experience going up against young idealists. Guess what? Business always wins. Always has, always will.

Except when they don't. Don't confuse the aggregate power of the profit motive as evidence for the competence of individuals.

In this case, it is the business people who are living in a fantasy land, and the "idealists" are the ones thwacking them with the cold cruel club of reality.

And this is exactly why. (5, Insightful)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503932)

People are powerless when they are convinced they are powerless.

Re:Yep (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503933)

You are so right, Google would have no chance in the real world.
Linux is a student's project.
OSS is an utopia.

sooner or later the industry will give in... (5, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503613)

The bottom line is that if I can see it or I can hear it, I can find a way to copy it. If you make it too difficult to watch a movie or listen to a music, people won't buy it. They'll eventually figure out that they have more to gain by making things easy to use rather than creating ill will and incompatibiity by trying to stamp out casual copying.

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (4, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503657)

that's a good point; although I'm going to pull you up on the "If you make it too difficult to watch a movie or listen to a music, people won't buy it." bit... It is already far too hard just to play DVDs that you own; you have to jump through hoops like watching "you shouldn't copy this" etc. and then on Fedora because of the copy protection it won't play strait off (you need an update from livna). And the copy protection means that I can't use my RIGHT to hold a copy of the material I have bought... which meant that when I lost one of my Futurama DVDs all I could do legally is buy another... they don't deserve to have any customers.

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (3, Informative)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503722)

which meant that when I lost one of my Futurama DVDs all I could do legally is buy another

I'd double check that if I were you. A few of the DVD manufacturers (Fox included, I believe), have a system set up so that if a disk fails, you can replace it for something like $5-$7. Basically, the cost of the media, processing and shiping.

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (1)

Methuseus (468642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503853)

But the new computer with a DVD+-RW drive I just bought gives me a way to copy it for about $0.50 (cost of the media) and I can make as many copies as I want. If the copy protection weren't there. I have a way to make copies at no cost to them, no hassle to them, so why shouldn't they want to let me do it?

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503883)

He said "lost". Lost usually means there's nothing to replace.

-stormin

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (5, Funny)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503735)

Eventually people who are not computer geeks posting on /. will realize that DRM is a pain in the ass. It could even be the downfall of Blue ray and HD-DVD. Eventually there will be a music/media player that is cooler than the iPod and people will realize why DRM sucks. All of the time spent in courts will eventually be a waste on both sides of the issue. Just wait and things will work themselves out naturally.

Re:sooner or later the industry will give in... (2, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503952)

They are selling product to the same public that thinks Natalee Holloway was the most important woman in the Western hemisphere. They crave entertainment, and while geeks will always have free stuffs, all the industry need do is deter casual copying. The industry can afford to fight and collect its enhanced profits while fighting. Copyright enforcement requires very little in the way of resources.

that's right, we're escalating (5, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503614)

No longer will copiers of electronic media be referred to as 'pirates'. They are now to be escalated to terrorists. That way, the MPAA & RIAA can get federal anti terrorism money to help in their fight against these evil people.

Re:that's right, we're escalating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503686)

Modded funny, but it's not. All you need is a media house to grab onto the term and suddenly it's real.

Aw geez. (4, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503713)

No longer will copiers of electronic media be referred to as 'pirates'. They are now to be escalated to terrorists.
For those that didn't RTFA, the comparison to terrorists didn't come from the MPAA guy.
JPB: These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices. And I don't have a question about who's going to win that one eventually.

I'm generally a Barlow fan, but that's some of the most poorestly chosen words in the history of language. Just what the MPAA, RIAA, et al. and their paid governement servants need, a little more help getting the little guy who just wants a backup copy of a movie sent to Gitmo.

Re:Aw geez. (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503770)

I'm generally a Barlow fan, but that's some of the most poorestly chosen words in the history of language.

I don't think they're "poorestly chosen" at all -- Barlow views it as a flattering bit of analogy and it never occurred to him that anyone else wouldn't.

Re:Aw geez. (4, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503845)

Barlow views it as a flattering bit of analogy and it never occurred to him that anyone else wouldn't.

Then perhaps it is time for him to stop speaking publicly.

It's as flattering an analogy as saying a DVD is like a child, and someone who wants to play that DVD on a computer running linux is like a pedophile who wants to have sex with that child.

Re:Aw geez. (1)

DarkHand (608301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503866)

It's as flattering an analogy as saying a DVD is like a child, and someone who wants to play that DVD on a computer running linux is like a pedophile who wants to have sex with that child.

You just gave the MPAA a new analogy to use.

Re:Aw geez. (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503894)

You just gave the MPAA a new analogy to use.

D'oh!

Re:Aw geez. (2, Insightful)

deacon (40533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503903)

"Poorly chosen" would be an understatement. Is Barlow trying to say that piracy is as bad as wanting to kill all the Jews, or is he saying that piracy and Hezbolla are both driven by idealism: one want free movies, and the other wants to kill all the Jews, and neither is that bad?

I am going to guess choice two, assuming the man has any working synapes left.

Re:that's right, we're escalating (3, Informative)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503714)

I'm curious why you've been modded as funny, since what you said isn't funny - it's true. Media pirates are being profiled in police documentation as people who are likely to be involved in hacking, stolen credit card rings and other scams. In fact, there is a whitepaper floating around that talks about tracking the upper echelon of hacking rings through their achilles heel - their propensity for aggregating large collections of stolen media. If you think the guys in Sweden who run the Pirate Bay are only involved in running a BT tracker for file sharing, you're incredibly naive. Raid those guys and you'd likely to find lots of other ancillary illegal activity, and running a pirate ring is just the probable cause you need to get a waarant.

Re:that's right, we're escalating (2, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503886)

Well, since the police have raided the pirate bay, I guess we'll find out just how much other illegal activity those guys have been up to.

Re:that's right, we're escalating (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503942)

Raid those guys and you'd likely to find lots of other ancillary illegal activity, and running a pirate ring is just the probable cause you need to get a waarant.


Yeah, they're into evil stuff like hosting legal torrent tracking files (probable cause? I guess by your logic that the NSA has probable cause to investigate me because I post on slashdot and criticize the current administration's actions as of iate). They're into other nasty evil stuff like running banner ads (oh gosh, more probable cause!) and distributing free porn (OMG more probable cause), all legal in their home country. The problem there is corruption.

If they are doing stuff which is illegal, let authorities find actual probable cause grounded in legalities and not engage in corrupt practices by giving in to our (the American) government when Bush granted the MPAA a favor and pushed Sweden's government into illegal activities, similar to what our government has been doing here since 2001/09/11. The political elite are just using the Muslim extremists as an excuse to grab more power and money for themselves, and to use it as an excuse to gravitate toward one single global government where there are no checks and balances, and where those who are in power will always remain in power.

Comparing bits to concrete items? (5, Insightful)

haluness (219661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503627)

I think Glickmans comparison of music to clothes and cars is where his argument fails.

Copying a song does not deprive anybody of the item - only the entity that controls how money is made from the transaction

on the contrary (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503727)

It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature. Would a clothing store give all their clothes for free? Would a car dealership give all its cars for free? Of course not. If they don't make a profit in this world they're out of business. That's just the laws of human nature.


I think Glickman makes a really good point here. I'll roll with the obligatory car analogy since everyones already familiar with the laws of 'human nature' as applied to cars. Suppose you left your Subaru parked outside your house on a public street.. Now suppose i had a replicator machine which could replicate any solid object and I came along in the night and replicated your Subaru and then got into the new Subaru and drove off into the night. The next day you might get into your car, and start driving along. But all the bonds between the atoms would have worked loose as a result of the replication, and also Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. Your car would just evaporate into a pile of chrome dust on the highway. You would be screwed.

I know this analogy doesn't apply to digital media, but it might.

Re:on the contrary (3, Insightful)

haluness (219661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503768)

I know this analogy doesn't apply to digital media, but it might.

How? Why would copying a stream of bits degrade the original?

Re:on the contrary (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503931)

well I can tell you've obviously never used a vehicle replication device.

   

Re:on the contrary (2, Informative)

chicken_moo (822458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503888)

Sure, if replicating my car would cause the original to be destroyed, that would be a problem, quite obviously; and if that were the case, you wouldn't have much of a replicator, since there's still only one copy of the car in working order. Anyone with at least 2 brain cells can see that. However, the situation you propose is completely unrelated to the question at hand, since copying a file on the computer does not degrade the original, and if done correctly, does not cause any degredation in the copy either.

Re:Comparing bits to concrete items? (3, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503951)

Yes, I've always hated that argument... it's still ip theft, but it's not as bad as theft of physical media. Which is why I hate those PSAs in theaters now, the "You wouldn't shoplift a DVD..." ones.

And I recall Princess Leia saying "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."

The gaming industry is a case in point. But they used to have both on and off disk copy protection schemes... the worse they got, the more people cracked them, because the cracked copies were easier and more fun to play without the game stopping to ask for word X in paragraph Y on page Z of the manual. Once they created the incentive to crack the game, they created the incentive to sell/distribute the cracked game.

The first thing I did after legally buying games was look up the crack on the internet.

These scemes are gone now, those are and will continue to be known as the dark ages of video gaming.

Now there are much better schemes in place. A lot of companies will replace media for a nominal fee. And they may make the media difficult to copy, but that difficulty doesn't affect gameplay or interoperability - because you don't expect an XBox game disc to work on a PS2. Some gaming companies are going online, even if you don't play online (like Steam.. no lost discs, there). It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than it was.

But the movie and recording industries are different... we're paying for content and we want to listen to it on whichever device catches our fancy. These are the dark ages of the **IA. They are making less money BECAUSE they insist on these copy protection schemes, not despite them. I wouldn't even buy a DVD player unless I knew it filtered macrovision and disabled region codes (yes, I had to pay extra for my last one, but it was worth it).

How many people have been trapped buying Apple ACCs only to discover they couldn't play them on their MP3 player? Yes, I know there's work-arounds, but that's the point - they are making it difficult to use the content you've LEGALLY purchased! Do they not understand that's a DISincentive to buyers?

Think of the irony... I bought a DVD player with region coding disabled and a macrovision filter (that works wonderfully, by the way). Now, I paid extra for this "functionality" that was present in the original unit until the manufacturer paid EXTRA (both in licensing and hardware fees) to remove that functionality!!! And who pays for those technical additions? WE DO! We pay, and are continuing to pay, for having functionality REMOVED from our products.

Where's the incentive for someone to pay $20 for a crippled, macrovision encoded, region locked DVD, when they can buy the illegal version for half the price and use it anywhere?

Of course there's morals involved... I don't have mp3s of anything I didn't pay for. I don't have any content on DVD that I didn't pay for, and it's against my nature to do so.

But I will send this message to the **ia's, I'd have purchased a lot more if you didn't make it so difficult.

I could rant about this for a long time, but I know I'm preaching to the choir. I've NEVER seen a valid reason for someone to buy an illegal copy of anything, or illegally copy someone elses material. But owning an illegal copy of something you own legally certainly shouldn't be a crime, IMO.

In other words, I think the industry should concentrate on making it beneficial to buy legal copies of material, they should spend less time and money on schemes that make it difficult to use legally purchased material and lawyers. Some company might lose 50 million dollars (yes, I know they claim billions as an industry as a whole), but how much did they spend on lawyers and licensing technological prevention schemes?

And who pays for all of this, ultimately?

Excuse me (5, Insightful)

Monkeys!!! (831558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503640)

As someone who recently was a 17 year old "electronic Hezbollah", I can say ideology had nothing to do with my choice to download and share movies. I did it, and still do, because it's easy and costs basically nothing. Sure I don't like the MPAA but I would still torrent if they didn't exist.

Re:Excuse me (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503677)

If we did not have strong rights orginizations there would be no incentive for the media companies to finance the high quality entertainment programming you now enjoy stealing in the first place.

Your Barney downloads would not even exist.

Oh. . .wait. . .

KFG

Re:Excuse me (0, Troll)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503736)

That's really what it comes down to. People can debate the morality and legality all they want... but if people keep wanting something for nothing, there's going to be no more something eventually.

I'm more of the opinion that once the RIAA & MPAA come out with reasonably, affordable distribution schemes everyone can be happy... sure their industry may only generate multi-millionaires instead of billionaires, but I'm sure they can live with that. (And no, a buck a song for less than CD quality DRM'd music is not an affordable distrubtion scheme... go losless for 50 cents, and then maybe we're talking)

Unfortunately people like the grandparent post make a reasonable and affordable distribution scheme hard to implement since they basically just come out and say, hey, if you make it available I'm going to steal it! Which results in all sorts of DRM which doesn't stop them anyway, and turns me off from buying your goods (especially if they're already compressed since my player may not handle your DRM and to decode/re-encode is both time consuming and quality degrading)

Re:Excuse me (2, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503819)

People can debate the morality and legality all they want... but if people keep wanting something for nothing, there's going to be no more something eventually.

I think you missed my point, entirely.

KFG

Re:Excuse me (1)

RSquaredW (969317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503740)

"Say what you want about the principles of National Socialism, Dude, but at least it was an ethos."

Seriously, it muddies the waters to call today's technophiliac-pirate who downloads movies and music analogous to a principled terrorist organization (not to say that I agree with their principles, but that they have them and stick to them). There are two problems: first, that justifiable laws against piracy are largely unenforceable, and second, that MPAA/RIAA-sanctioned safeguards cause grave harm to legitimate fair use rights.

The only principled stand against the second problem is to not consume their product - don't buy it, don't download it, don't infringe on its copyright. To use the terrorist analogy, anyone who tries to claim that their piracy is principled is a Zarqawi, no freedom fighter but an opportunistic thug. It is thanks to the electronic Zarqawis of the world that I get tagged as an opportunist when I denounce DRM - "Oh, you just want to download music for free."

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503776)

Let me be the first to wish you "happy birthday!"

Great analogy (4, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503654)

These are aging industries run by aging men, and they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah because they resent the content industry for its proprietary practices.

Dear EFF: It's probably not such a good idea to align yourself with terrorist groups. Remember:

"But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

"If You Got a Warrant, I Guess You Gotta Come In" (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503861)

When the EFF selects as a spokesman the former lyricist for the Grateful Dead, you can just sort of expect the colorful, counter-culture (or is that counter-productive?) over-the-top stick-it-to-the-man metaphors and accusations to fly. The result is hardly what I would call "crossing sabres;" more like crossing Ohio State Daisys with National Guardsman sharpshooters.

And that always works out well, doesn't it?

But the folks to whom the EFF is pitching -- the college kids and twenty-somethings who are donating to them and actually paying for the EFF people to fly comfortably cross-country from SF to DC so frequently (I'll never figure that move to the West Coast out...), they'll probably think that "JPB RAWWKS, D00D!! KICK A$$!! FAWK, YEAH!!" and pony up some more dough for the EFF coffers, so in the end, it's probably a brilliant idea to keep tilting at those windmills with tie-dyed lances.

Hezbollah? (2, Funny)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503678)

I'm pretty sure that comparing teenagers to Lebanese 'terrorists' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah [wikipedia.org] ) isn't going to help win the hearts of the unwashed masses.

/tongue in cheek

Re:Hezbollah? (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503734)

I agree with you partly... I think what they were trying to say is that these people are frustrated and feel like they are doing something as a matter of it being "right" in a moral sense... don't get me wrong I think that they could have used a far better example, maybe something like the stylised pirates of old... you know; people who aren't associated with murder
(I know pirates did that - and still do - but the image now is closer to pirates of the carribean)

Thats it, i'm going home (2, Insightful)

cez (539085) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503679)

"John Perry Barlow is the one who's doing a disservice to the consumers, because you see if you don't adequately compensate the artist, the director, the creator, the actor, they won't do it in the first place so people won't get movies."

This kind of "play by my rules or I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is disgusting. When will these suits realize that technology is change by its very essence and refusal to accept change breads discontent. There totalitarianistic utopia has ended but they refuse to seek out new means to an end. Do they realy believe a threat of "noones gonna make movies anymore if they can only become millionaires instead of multi-millionaires" is gonna work?

Re:Thats it, i'm going home (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503778)

Do they realy believe a threat of "noones gonna make movies anymore if they can only become millionaires instead of multi-millionaires" is gonna work?

The other night I paid three bucks to perform a song.

I wrote the song for free because I had an itch to scratch (a very lovely itch, I might ad).

The itch writes songs, records them and sells them as an independant. God bless CD Baby.

The idea that art will curl up and die without without strong IP rights is ludicrous. Art was invented by people with no such rights.

KFG

Re:Thats it, i'm going home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503783)

With the crap coming out of Hollywood I wish they would take their ball and go home.

Re:Thats it, i'm going home (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503820)

I'd say this is more like "you're going to print my FUD or I won't give you an interview". Glickman is (semi-subtly) using a fundamentalist, black and white image of copyright, that to the untrained eye might look reasonable. The neat thing about his little trick is that anyone who disagrees with him is anti-copyright, anti-property (see the clothing example), and against compensating people for their work (musicians, etc).

Unfortunately (for him), he's a fucking loon. The EFF has never advocated abolishing copyright or not compensating artists. They have, however, advocated exploring alternative models of compensation that might actually work in reality.

I don't normally... (0, Flamebait)

Fusione (980444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503681)

Dan Glickman.. more like Dickman. =\ Am I the only one here that feels compelled to download and distribute some movies after reading that?

Re:I don't normally... (1)

J_Darnley (918721) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503794)

What's worse if that neither Zonk or the original poster noticed and then corrected the mistake.

Electronic Freedom Foundation? (2, Informative)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503687)

You would think the BBC would get the names right. It's actually the Electronic Frontier Foundation. [eff.org]

Re:Electronic Freedom Foundation? (1)

wigwamus (977411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503911)

oops sorry

Ar ye pirates.... (4, Interesting)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503693)

The hackers want to break Hollywood on the wheel of their collective ingenuity and show the suits who is in charge. ... Big media wants to make money from the internet like it does with every other outlet, or at the very least not have piracy forever draining away their profits.

Isn't it ironic that hollywood is seeing some of their biggest profits in ages, and as time elapses they continue to make more and more money. I know that they do lose money due to piracy, but most of that piracy comes from organized groups with huge copying and distribution capabilities. For those in NYC, how often have you seen "bootleggers" in front if the federal building, state office buildings even near police precints selling pirated copies. Why doesn't hollywood focus on finding the sources of these centers and shutting them down. If the government under hollywoods complaints can go and bother 17 year olds, how difficult would it be for the same government to find out who is buying multirecording DVD burners on a large scale. Let's get real.

Re:Ar ye pirates.... (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503742)

Exactly. This isn't a fight against piracy, this is just another battle in the very long fight big business has been waging to ensure permanent revenue streams, whether they release product or not.

Aging deadheads (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503698)

These are aging industries run by aging men

True. Two of the members of the '60s band "The Grateful Dead" are already dead.

He's an old hippie, and he don't know what to do. Should he hang on to the old? Should he grab on to the new?

Re:Aging deadheads (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503786)

Two of the members of the '60s band "The Grateful Dead" are already dead.

Two members current at time of death (or 3. Had Pigpen left the group?) And 2 (3?) previous members. Either way, the total is 5, fyi.

Re:Aging deadheads (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503795)

True. Two of the members of the '60s band "The Grateful Dead" are already dead.

Two? Hell, they've had four keyboard players die.

This is all about distribution (5, Insightful)

w33t (978574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503704)

The real thing the 'AAs have lost is the power of distribution.

20 years ago if you wanted a movie you had to hop in the car. Even for home viewing of a VHS you had to go to the video store.

The MPAA and RIAA need to face the fact that the internet is essentially a broadcast/time-shifted medium which casts to a broader audience than ever. And how do broadcaster's make their money? Advertising.

This may or may not be a popular notion - but it is my opinion that the best way to support movies and music in the future is via product endorsement. Yes, that's right. You might see wayne's world-esqe [google.com] product placement rise - but isn't everyday life just product placement anyhow? look around you and count the consumer items that have no labeling on them. Our movies and music should follow suit and become freely distributable.

They cannot hold back the tide forever - I think it is inevitable.

Re:This is all about distribution (4, Insightful)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503804)

The alternative is convenience.

Take a look at allofmp3.com... do people flock to it because of its questionable legality? No, they flock to it because they get the music the want easily, quickly, and in good quality with no DRM and lots of options. And people flock to iTunes for similar reasons.

Yes, there are 17 year old pirates who want to steal for the sake of stealing, but once they get jobs & make some real money their time becomes valuable, and they buy your product IF you offer it for a fair price.

I'd gladly spend $3 to download a one time rental movie that I can watch on my TV, or $.50 to buy a non-drmd losslessly compressed song (actually if it's lossless I'll even accept reasonable DRM... if it's already compressed, no way tho) if you can provide me the guarantee of quality & a convenient shopping experience & a promise that I'm not downloading some virus from whatever today's napster is... those features are a service that people will pay for, the problem is finding the price points people will accept. iTunes really seems to have done this, which dissapoints the piss outa me, cause it's way over what I think is fair.

Re:This is all about distribution (1)

w33t (978574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503930)

I agree that music is even on iTunes still overpriced. It is my feeling that music should be offered for free by default. It costs me NOTHING to turn on the radio - only my time - and I can hear the music for absolute free there.

What maybe would be a good idea is rather than pay for a song pay for a subscription service - you know, $.99 "subscription" to the song which would give you emailed updates on remixes - live versions and such that you could then subsequently download for free.

I think that sounds like a nifty idea.

But at it's core, music should be free [w33t.com] ;) - artists should make money through commissions and performances.

Re:This is all about distribution (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503901)

but isn't everyday life just product placement anyhow?

great sentence. :) (but.. sigh... too true.)

Video of the coming war (2, Funny)

Caste11an (898046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503706)

I suspect it'll look (and sound!) something like this [youtube.com] .

deaf ears (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503717)

John Perry Barlow: We were at one point the biggest grossing performing act in the United States, and most of our records went platinum sooner or later.
It's an economic model that has worked in my experience and I think it does work. It's just that it seems like it wouldn't. It seems counter-intuitive.

Dan Glickman: It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature.


"Look, this works. I have proof."
"I refuse to believe it can work."

If they can't listen to reason, we'll have to wait for them to die, it seems.

Re:deaf ears (2, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503796)

"Look, this works. I have proof."
"I refuse to believe it can work."

Or put another way... "I'll see it when I believe it."

If they can't listen to reason, we'll have to wait for them to die, it seems.

Who said anything about waiting? Perhaps we can facilitate their demise, as it were. [NOTE to NSA -- that's a joke, son!]

Re:deaf ears (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503833)

Or put another way... "I'll see it when I believe it."

No, he's actually saying "I don't need to see it. I know it can't be true."

There is a difference (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503826)

The Grateful Dead encouraged sharing of fan recordings, etc. So you would tape a concert or a mix and share dubs of that tape. Which didn't sound that hot compared to a LP. Most people went out and bought the LP for 2 reasons: ( (1) more convenient (2) sounds better )

Zoom ahead how many years? Now we have the internet and you can get the album quicker than running to the store (kill reason #1) and if you encode it right the quality is the same or at least undiscernable to the untrained ear (kill reason #2)

Now I'm a firm believer that there is a middle ground but JPB is way off base saying they can just take "their" model nowadays. Times have changed, man!

The problem is lack of alternatives (4, Insightful)

Trails (629752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503718)

The reason why the movie industry is getting clobered, and the music industry got clobered: they didn't offer legal alternatives to the service.

To say it's a battle between free and paid is oversimplifying: iPod + iTunes is wildly succesful. It's paid, but it leverages the ease of the internet to get legally downloaded music.

If these industries had tried to embrace the new tech instead of surpressing it, most would go to them, and the black market would be a fringe issue.

For movies, the choice right now is either online and illegal/unpaid, or offline and legal.

A lot of people are choosing online, not illegal.

Example: if they offered movies for download, or online streaming movies and paid subscription, and the price wasn't retarded, a LOT of people would ditch piratebay et al.

My $0.02

Re:The problem is lack of alternatives (1)

Slightly Askew (638918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503830)

Example: if they offered movies for download, or online streaming movies and paid subscription, and the price wasn't retarded, a LOT of people would ditch piratebay et al.

I disagree. Maybe at the inception of the concept of online movies, this would have worked. Now, while you may regain some market share from the "pirates", the cat is already out of the bag on this one. Keeping it there would have been easy by providing a legal, affordable alternative. Now that it's out, offering paid movie streams is not going to convince people to just stop going to piratebay.

Re:The problem is lack of alternatives (1)

skiflyer (716312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503834)

no idea how good it is, but isn't this what movielink.com is trying to achieve?

BTW, I completely agree.

Hezbollah?! (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503739)

Oh, great way to give propaganda to the enemy. Fucking dimwit. Why not just compare the Apache group to Al Qaeda because they're an umbrella group for "renegade" software developers like Al Qaeda is a terrorist umbrella group. In this day and age of terrorism being the new "think of the children!!!!" rallying cry for every attack on freedom, why choose the one comparison that gives a talking point to the forces who want to end freedom in their area?

Re:Hezbollah?! (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503773)

Actually, I'm just waiting for that idea to gain a certain amount of currency, because it will not fly for the public, and will make futher asses of those expounding it:

"Teenagers downloading movies are committing terrorism!"

Both sides have it wrong... (5, Interesting)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503744)

The EFF is painting a picture of people who are pirating for teh sake of pirating becauase they feel it's the right thing to do. None of the people I know who actively copy movies and songs have every mentioned once screwing any institution. For them it's "I can watch this new movie at home, on my big screen TV, with my popcorn and drink and not fork over $25 for my wife and I to go to a theater and probably have a better experience" or "This let's me have tons of music I wouldn't go buy just so I can listen to it and see if I like it" and things like that. There's no magical army of "copyfighters" out there. Just people who want free media.

The MPAA and RIAA and various other organizations have it wrong in thinking that they will out-litigate these people because simply put, these people know what they're doing is illegal and choose to do it anyway.

I do agree with the concept that they need to make it possible for people to buy media in a conducive manner without an undo cost and they will make money. ITMS and several others are proving it's possible.

The MPAA can go ask the software industry exactly how profitable "stamping our piracy" has been for em. Or they can ask them how much inexpensive downloads have helped good software spread.

Re:Both sides have it wrong... (3, Interesting)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503913)

None of the people I know who actively copy movies and songs have every mentioned once screwing any institution.
I do. If I like a song, I look up the artist on riaawatch.com. If I cannot find an album containing that song that is not produced by an RIAA member, I "obtain" it for no price, if I can find a non-RIAA album, I buy it right then and there.

Re:Both sides have it wrong... (3, Informative)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503940)

Goddamnit, I meant http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ [magnetbox.com] (RIAA Radar, not RIAA watch)

My new band name! (1, Funny)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503750)

Electronic Hezbollah is my new band name. TM and (c) and all that.

MORTAL KOMBAT! (5, Insightful)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503755)

JPB: If I were to encounter Dan Glickman on the street and we were to have a civilised conversation about this subject, which would be a long shot, I'd tell him to relax.
DK: First of all I'd tell John Perry Barlow that I'm very relaxed and if we met each other we'd probably have a very good time. But all of us kind of need to chill out.
Someone PLEASE get these two in the same room to debate.

You can tell Dan Glickman's age in his speech:

DK: It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature.
  • Microsoft: SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005
  • Washington Mutual: 2 dollars given out in $2 denominations(the $2 bill)
  • Gentleware: Poseidon(Community Edition)
  • Wal Mart / Sam's Club: Sampled foods from selected vendors
  • Arby's: Chicken Fingers(?)
  • Google
It doesn't defy the law of nature, it's a useful technique called marketing!

DK: Would a clothing store give all their clothes for free?
Old man should see this [google.com]

DK: Would a car dealership give all its cars for free?
In a contest they would.

Sabers (5, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503767)

Glickman: You are powerful, as the Emperor expected. But you are not a Jedi yet.

Barlow: You'll find I'm full of surprises!

Clash of lightsabers, sparks

Glickman: You don't know the power of the DRM Side! Join me!

Barlow: Never! I'll never join you!

Glickman: It is pointless to resist!

Real World Experience HAH! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503780)

The real world 17 year old idealists have more going for them in my opinion... business "experience" is simply trying to make more money and how they can trick people into giving them your money... idealists have brains like anyone else, even if they are 17.

Interesting footnote (3, Interesting)

saifrc (967681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503781)

Did anyone else notice that the article references the Digg comments thread that's associated with this story? I find this extremely interesting -- almost a validation of Digg by BBC, a major media outlet; also, a major validation of the BBC, by a major user-driven web community.

Of course, I found this story via Slashdot, so there's no reason for major media organizations to NOT be aware of/reference the methods of "Web 2.0" in their online articles.

Re:Interesting footnote (1)

saifrc (967681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503847)

On closer inspection, it looks like the author himself submitted the story to Digg. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? On the one hand, it seems like the same brand of shameless self-promotion that accompanies the idea of submitting an article on one's own blog to Digg or Slashdot. On the other hand, it's a recognition -- almost a concession -- to the distributive power of websites like Digg and Slashdot over BBC's website.

In the future, will all news on the Internet need to go to consumers from content providers via filters? If so, then the ones who control those filters will have a lot of influence on the attitudes of the public. Let's see where this goes.

Nasty Ad-Hominems != Debate (2, Interesting)

fuzzybunny (112938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503798)

Much as I support the EFF's efforts and goals, and sympathize with the gut-level worries of artists about "theft", this article does neither side any service.

It's basically two guys taking nasty swipes at each other. I think that either BBC2 was actively and selectively trying to portray them like two implacable, mean-mouthed curmudgeons, or that JPB and the RIAA guy could both have been a bit more factual.

One thing I really don't like is the characterization of "Electronic Hezbollah", although it's a catchy term; it's not like there's an organized, widespread movement to thieve and destroy. Rather, it's a combination of a groundswell sentiment against excessive prices and insulting, oppressive consumer-unfriendly practices, and a wish to have more convenient and accessible media (remind me again why iTunes was so successful) that doesn't hinder people from listening to their music / watching their movies anywhere or doing a bit of sharing with their friends.

Age and treachery will overcome youth and skill (0, Offtopic)

metoc (224422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503803)

What? You want more?

Respect your elders... (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503805)

... soon enough, you'll be able to stick them in nursing homes & tell them they're not allowed to borrow the movies that the lady in the next room has.

Pirating is Selfish and Parasitic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503822)

Simple argument, if EVERYONE pirated everything instead of purchasing would there still be new things to pirate?

The intellectual underpinning of "pirate culture" is a sense of entitlement.

If I'm wrong, please explain why.

Perfect example of why I stopped giving to EFF (3, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503843)

> they're up against 17-year-olds who have turned themselves into electronic Hezbollah

To compare file traders to Hezbollah shows either a grotesque sense of proportion or a distorted sense of reality. Had it been the MPAA idiot making the comparision it would simply be the typical file traders == pirates == menace to society == torrorist rubbish we have grown to expect from those asshats. Dispicable but par for the course. But no, this quote was from the EFF, meaning they think the comparison is apt. Which either means they AGREE that trading files online is morally comparable to intentionally murdering women, children and other non-combatants or, more likely, they think terrorists, as long as they are politically correct anti-american/anti-semitic terrorists that is, are admirable people worthy of comparing oneself to.

Yes, the original goals of the EFF were praiseworthy and I supported them. But 9/11 apparently did change everything. Lately the EFF seems to spend most of its time and effort supporting the terrorists and even when, like this event, they were back on topic they can't seem to avoid showing their true political calling. Harsh criticism? Yes. But there is a difference between criticism of the current administration, criticism of your country, and supporting the enemy, lending them aid and comfort. And for most of the left today, they are so far over that line they don't even see the line anymore. Anyone who can entertain the notion there is ANYTHING praiseworthy in Hezbollah is someone who is way over the line.

good idea (0, Troll)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503857)

i declair a jihad against all draconian corporate greed, specially the MPAA & RIAA...

They're both stupid (1)

mentaldingo (967181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503871)

Neither of them argued their points very clearly or sensibly. Comparing music to clothes is stupid, as is comparing file-sharers to terrorists! Just who's side was that EFF guy on?

Offtopic: The bar that says

The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
looks hideous. Black font on dark grey background? What's that about? (Other than that, the new design pwns.)

TFA reads like an argument between a couple of ... (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503889)

spoiled brats!

Technology (as emobdied in the internet) will drive future business models - not ideology. There will be two types in the media industry - those who see it coming and work to "catch the wave", and those who resist it by trying to hold it back. Two guesses who'll be running the show in ten to twenty years.

In Mexico, we have a word for obsolete groups. (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503891)

In Mexico, we have a word for obsolete groups ruled by grumpy old men.

"Dinosaurs".

Allow me to explain.

It's part of common culture, the oldest political party (PRI) is run by 60-year-old (or older) men who belong to established groups (freemasons) and unions (CTM) ruled by them, with union leaders imposed by the government in turn. Political cartoons in mexico often use this image to depict the PRI, which had been in power for more than 70 years, and their government model is more than obsolete. It's *extint*. Hence the name, "dinosaurs". Here's a pair [nyud.net] of cartoons [nyud.net] drawn in 2000, before the elections where the opposing party (PAN) won for the first time in history. Note that in the first cartoon the dinosaur represents the party, and in the second, the worker union which gives its support to the party, threatening the voters.

Knowing this, the term "dinosaur" is more than adequate to describe the RIAA and MPAA.

Which was that? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15503917)

"The fact of the matter is that people who create content for movies and television have to make a profit. If they don't you won't see all this wonderful stuff and listen to it."

By "wonderful stuff" does he mean the pathetic garbage that's been coming out of Hollywood in recent years? The whole movie theater profits have been falling for a while now, with people waiting untill DVD release to rent/watch the stuff. If Hollywood/music industry actually put out decent content they MIGHT, and that's a big might, have something to complain about. As it stands now, I don't go to the theater, and I rarely watch movies, because of the lack of good/innovative story. In the last 3 years I have aquired LOTR(Extended box set), Equilibrium, and Basic (which I only got because it was really cheap and someone recommended it). And I don't watch pirated content, so even if all piracy died now I still wouldn't be any more profitable to the industries.

Work For Free (2, Insightful)

Piata (927858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503945)

I'm sure all of us have been willing to work for free at one time or another. If you believe in something and enjoy the work enough, it's not really "work". If all these movie makers were as passionate as they should be about creating what they sell, the dollar they earn from making it is secondary to creating something that they and others will enjoy for years to come. Glickman talks like a man that is only interested in profit and that's the problem entirely. No one in their right mind will whole heartedly buy anything from a company or group that is interested only in profit.

Entertainment Industry Is Against Sharing (2, Insightful)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503947)

I cringe whenever I hear file sharing termed as 'piracy' or, in this case, to the activities of a terrorist group ('Hezbollah'). Allowing this vocabulary to continue wins the argument for the entertainment industry on the power of semantics without any analysis of the facts.

What the entertainment industry and ilk are against is sharing. It is only through their imposition of selfishness and self importance on the ability of others to share that they can make money. Unfortunately, this makes them net negative resources to society because in doing so, they compromise the free flow of information necessary to a technically and culturally advancing civilization. Imagine if they had been around when humans only had oral history as a way to pass information between people and generations. There would be no tape recorders, no CDs, and certainly no computers.

Piracy is when someone actually takes something of value and realizes the value of it themselves. The Hong Kong outfits that take a movie, stamp it on a DVD, and then package and sell it as if were the original are pirates in this sense. It makes sense to have copyright laws preventing this type of activity. However, to use the parlance of the summary," 17 year old kids" are not "Hezbollah". They are not terrorists. They are not pirates. Pirates do not share. They are simply sharing information with each other (and us), which is a virtue we espouse to younger generations. The effort of the entertainment industry to criminalize their behavior is an affront to all of us who share thoughts, ideas, and anything else we choose to share without charge.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...