Blogcritics: Comments on MPAA: It's War

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:14:22 EST

Yep, I accidentally gave the URL to the music at Advance.net. Here's the link. You're welcome. - Temple

Comment by Temple Stark

Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:28:39 EST

Andrew, I put this up at Advance.net where hopefully millions of people will love and adore your every word. - Thank you. Temple

Comment by Terry Turner

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:55:11 EST

Oddly enough, big, successful industries can be the biggest Luddites around. I remember when the recording industry was upset over cassette decks and Hollywood went nuts over movie rental stores (back when a VHS copy of a b-movie would cost you $90). They're short on engineers at the top levels. Instead of shaping the future of media delivery, they ride the wave created by other industries. And suits are scared of surfing.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:56:56 EST

it would work along the same lines as ASCAP or BMI, based upon sampling methods and distributed to copyright owners and performers based upon downloads This was such a hot topic in '02 and '03 that I just got burned out on it and have focused on other things

Comment by Eric Berlin

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:47:01 EST

Interesting idea, Eric -- first time I've heard it. Would the revenue, in theory, spread out among technology and media companies? Or would percentages be apportioned based upon downloads?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:23:36 EST

as I have been saying all along since the downloading/sharing phenonomenon first hit: the only way to make this work to everyone's advantage is to come up with some kind of blanket license that ISP customers pay to have access to everything that's out there

Comment by mrbenning

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:23:54 EST

If I recall correctly, in an interview I read a few years back Valenti (I think it was him) pretty much shoved his foot in his mouth. He said something along the lines of: -Stealing movies hurts everyone. Not just the directors or actors, but even the guy that paints the sets and doesn't make much money. You know, the guys that make, like, only 90,000 dollars a year.- That's not an actual quote, but the message was the same. And 90,000 is very close to the number he said. The interviewer mentioned the fact (in the article) that he obviously had a skewed perspective on people's salaries and poverty in America. What it boils down to is that the MPAA don't understand what the real threats to Hollywood are. Yeah, free consumption is up, but it's still a new threat and there are some scarier things for Hollywood that have been emerging for years. They should be concentrating on things like lowering their own salaries so production companies won't film in Toronto or Vancouver or Australia to save a few million bucks. They should worry about the quality of their movies. And to top it off, as I know this isn't just because of Hollywood tycoons, they should try to get the major cinema chains to lower their prices. Those are just my opinions, of course.

Comment by SFC SKI

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:15:47 EST

Good points, I spend a lot less money on entertainment media unless I can get it at a true discount. If I can't I don't bother buyibg it at all, it is a luxury, not a necessity, after all.

Comment by jerky

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:07:49 EST

The RIAA and the MPAA think that by downloading a song or a movie, I am stealing a percentage of the profits that the artists, actors or anyone involved in the production of this work is entitled to, robbing "thousands of honest, hard-working people of their livelihood, and stifling creativity." In reality, an actor in a big-budget film may make 10 million dollars for the film, and gets paid whether the movie sells or not. This payout is 50 times that of the average annual salary of a doctor, who saves lives every day, and whose line of work is exceedingly more difficult than an actor. They bitch that I am stealing their profits, when in actuality, I never intended to pay 8 dollars to go see the movie, or 15 dollars to buy the album, so the net loss is zero. If there is a film that I feel is well made and worth seeing, I will pay to see it on the big screen or rent the DVD. But in the case of some independent films on a limited release that aren't showing at nearby theaters, and which I probably wouldn't rent at the video store, the downloading of these types of films allows a wider audience to experience and appreciate these works that much more. And by previewing movies by downloading, I can decide for myself if a movie is worth having on a high-quality format when that film is available for me to spend my hard-earned money on. As for downloaders stifling creativity, since the creation of motion pictures there have been thousands of movies released, and most of them are total crap, so the "creativity" of filmmakers is stifled only by the limited imagination and intellect of their creators. The sharing of movies or music is equivalent to the introduction of the VCR or cassette tapes, which made it simple to make copies of somehting and share it with your friends. We all know how the legal battle over the VCR turned out. It all boils down to the mpaa/riaa realizing that the number of products from their artists have been increasing in number as fast as the quality has been going in the toilet. They realize that to support their opulent lifestyles, there is a way to increase their undeserved profits in launching a widespread shotgun-style approach of suing private citizens, most of which can't afford a long, drawn-out legal battle with the deep pockets of the MPAA/RIAA. They usually settle out of court for around three thousand dollars, or about as much as MPAA president Jack Valenti pays for a "hair-burning" type of haircut, as seen recently on "Ripley's Believe it or Not". Yeah, I can't believe it either...

Comment by P47AT

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:50:28 EST

The MPAA are terrified of new technology, yes they do try to crush what they don't understand. The best example of this is a quote from Jack Valenti, former pres. of the MPAA, testifying to Congress about the VCR JACK VALENTI: We are facing a very new and a very troubling assault ... and we are facing it from a thing called the video cassette recorder and its necessary companion called the blank tape. We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry ... whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine, the VCR. The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology threatens an entire industry's economic vitality and future security. [The new technology - the VCR] is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone. - Jack Valenti, President, Motion Picture Association of America, testifying on videocassette recorders before the House Judiciary Committee in 1982. Come on, doesn't that make you laugh!

Comment by Loki

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:33:36 EST

20 years ago, I was an early teenager and we used to make copies of our favorite cassettes for friends, we used to tape music from the radio, tape movies from HBO, TV, etc. This was illegal, but it was illegal like jaywalking. Nobody paid alot of attention to it, nobody was filing class action lawsuits. Now, this is HUGE business. Why? Because it's being done on more of a global scale? Come on, if you don't want people making copies of movies, then reduce the cost to where a family won't have to shell out $50-70 to see a freakin movie! I'd pay to see a better quality large screen movie if it was more reasonable, but to sacrifice some quality and see it for free as opposed to taking another mortgage on my house, which will I go to? Want to stop copying, lobby the electronics industry not to make cd burners, dvd burners, etc etc. Don't screw with the very people who put money in your pockets.

Comment by SFC SKI

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:04:20 EST

While I have downloaded in the past, I have to say there is a certain amount of "theft of service" illegality to it. Whether you agree or not, stealing movies or songs and saying it is OK because the corporation makes so much money anyway is like stealing a car and using the same justification. That being said, I don't disagree with your assessment of the entertainment industry's shortsighted fear and failure to embrace technology and a new business model. It is as though they have forgotten that each advance in technology has meant not a loss in profits, but a large increase over the long term. I just hope challenge to their lawsuits will force them to emplace a favorable compromise and allow more to be had less expensively, in the long term increasing consumption and profits. Failure to do so will only bring about further decrease in profit and loss of market.

Comment by Kjeldoran_King

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:12:22 EST

I'm glad that people steal movies form the assholes. They make millions and we make pennies compared to them.