CEA: kids ‘turned off by the RIAA’
p2pnet news view | MPAA News:- “The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance.”
Thus spoke Motion Picture Association of America employee and Hollywood spinster Fritz Attaway (right) at the recent International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers’ (CISAC) World Copyright Summit.
“We have got to do a better job” at attempting approaches at copyright protection, “in a way that we get paid but also that consumers can access our works,” he said, quoted by Liza Porteus Viana in Intellectual Property Watch.
In other words, the MPAA doesn’t know its anal orifice from its ginglymus.
During the second day of the summit, “some content creators also lamented that instead of fighting for compensation with the advent of new technologies, they fought the technology – like the VCR – itself,” says Liz, continuing Attaway cited the MPAA’s work, “with the technology industry in the introduction of the DVD”.
She goes on »»»
He also noted that via Hulu – a joint venture of NBC Universal and News Corp that offers television shows for free, for now – almost all TV products can be legitimately available to consumers in the United States.
“We’ve got to do more of that. We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content,” he said. “People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.”
“We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content. People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.” – Fritz Attaway, Motion Picture Association of America
Eduardo Bautista, president of the management board of Spanish collective management group, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, agreed, saying, “We’ve done a lousy job. We should have been fired.”
That’s also the message one of those referenced “enemies” tried to relay. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association and president of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, said content creators cannot simply keep saying “no” – particularly with the next generation’s seemingly rebellious nature – because it will create more anti-copyright backlash.
“Recognise that kids today have been so turned off by the RIAA approach to litigation that they’re rejecting everything you say,” Shapiro said to National Association of Music Publishers President David Israelite.
Although Israelite made the comparison that if people were stealing computers from stores en masse, the technology industry would be up in arms, Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property – a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience. “That’s hurting your case because you’re being rejected by anyone under 25 who is saying, ‘these guys are full of it,’” Shapiro continued.
One way to strengthen the creators’ case, particularly given the current state of the global economy, is to stress the economic value of their industry, particularly in developing countries, experts said. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, pointed out that the copyright industry is responsible for roughly 6 percent of a developing economy.
“When you bring those figures to the attention of the government of developing countries, they begin to see it differently,” said WIPO Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger. “There’s something in it for them … it’s not just something for America and the Europeans and the Japanese.”
Copyright Harmonisation; Performance Rights Introduced; Orphan Works Coming
One thing that could provide beneficial to the copyright industry is copyright harmonisation throughout the world, many panellists agreed. Harmonised laws could help all cultures – including those in developing countries – survive in the global marketplace, and that that system would encourage diversity of creative works. George Washington University intellectual property professor Ralph Oman cited Canada and India for not signing on to various internet treaties that could help on this front, and Brazil for criticising WIPO as too oriented toward developed country interests, but not constructively engaging in the debate.
There were also more calls to pass performance-rights legislation for sound recordings in the United States. Perry Apelbaum, staff director for Representative John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said that issue is a priority for Conyers’ House Judiciary Committee. The House on Tuesday passed the Webcasters Settlement Act of 2009, which gives Web radio stations and artists more time to agree on a royalty payment system. The Senate is expected to take up the bill within the next month or so.
“At the end of the day, we want a bill that does not hurt any songwriters,” Apelbaum said.
US Copyright Register Marybeth Peters told Intellectual Property Watch that orphan works legislation is expected to be introduced within the next 10 days. It is her understanding there may still be some issues in the House version to be resolved, and there are some stakeholders – such as illustrators and other artists – “who are probably going to lobby pretty hard against it.”
Peters said this issue is important to her, and the fact it came so close to passing last year is almost bittersweet.
“What I hope it isn’t … is it’s one magic moment you get” to finally get it passed, then it doesn’t happen, she said.
French Three-Strikes Strikeout
Rights holders were dealt a blow Wednesday when a French court struck down the country’s “three strikes” law, saying that “free access” to the internet is a human right and cannot be withheld without a judge’s order, and that the new system presumes guilt, instead of innocence. It is anticipated that the government will introduce a new version of the bill with the same “graduated response” approach, but it may transfer some of the administrative powers to a court.
“This isn’t over yet in France by a long shot,” said Shira Perlmutter, executive vice president of global legal policy for IFPI – as well as a name said to be under possible consideration for President Obama’s IP “tsar.” “In general, the French approach was a very important step in just recognising we need cooperation by ISPs.”
YouTube – to which users upload 20 hours of video each minute – took a bit of a pounding the day before by rights holders, and has been sued by some artist groups and others. YouTube representatives noted that the service is losing money, and parent-company Google has invested a lot of cash and resources to try to make it a viable business.
YouTube currently has 4,000 licensing partners, and wants to acquire more, but one obstacle contributing to what YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levin called “copyright gridlock” is that there are too many disparate licensing schemes to deal with. The company touted its “historic, first-of-its kind-deals” with rightsholders to obtain the licensing tools it has after Israelite blasted YouTube for practising the “Corleone business model” [referring to an American mafia figure] in which they launch first, then ask for permission from content holders later.
“We ploughed through, spent an inordinate amount of energy … we’re very proud of what we accomplished and if you’re serious about working with new media companies instead of killing new technologies, that’s what you guys should have done in the beginning and that’s what you should be doing now,” Levine told Israelite.
Google chief legal officer David Drummond, “defended his company’s business practises, noting that while there’s still a long way to go in perfecting its licensing regime, the company has benefited rights holders,” says Intellectual Property Watch, adding:
“He noted that in 2008, Google generated $6 billion for publishers via its Google Ad Sense program; the company’s net income was $4.3 billion. As for YouTube, the movie “Monty Python” saw a 23,000 percent increase in DVD sales in three days immediately after the launch of the Monty Python YouTube channel.
“We don’t want to shy away from the fact that Google’s been a disruptor, along with other internet companies” for artists, Drummond said.
“But at the end of the day, I believe we’re all motivated by a common mission. …We can be partners, not enemies.”
Intellectual Property Watch – Copyright Holders Acknowledge Losing Battle For Public Consciousness At World Copyright Summit, June 11, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Why would ANYBODY still be listening to these people?
Corporate “rights-holders”, the “estates” of dead artists, You know, the people who REALLY benefit from copy”right” (needless to say, not the actual artists/creators themselves) have NOTHING legitimate to say on this topic, given the fact that they:
1. Refuse to ever honor THEIR side of the supposed “bargain” (by allowing stuff to enter the public domain in a timely fashion).
2. Collude with government to “fight the technology” (thus putting the lie once and for all, to the notion that corporate capitalism and the “free market” are synonymous).
3. Relentlessly propagandize, terrorize, and generally bullshit everybody ad nauseum (”home taping is killing music” — then why the fuck isn’t it DEAD yet, hmm?)
Then, YEARS after the technology is already in place, they manage to create Fancast and Hulu.
Wow, really stellar achievement, folks. (I use Hulu and Fancast myself, because they’re actually pretty good.)
Problem is, people have been doing streaming-media sites for YEARS before this, and the only thing that kept the corporate frauds from getting to the party is the fact that they were mired in their own bullshit thicket of “licensing” and red-tape.
It’s great that you can see the whole run of southpark at http://www.southparkstudios.com, but there were dozens of sites offering the same functionality for at least two years before that. (www.sp-zone.com and allsp.com were two, if I remember correctly.)
So, to hold Hulu and Fancast up as some sort of radical step forward is disingenuous at best.
They’re late to the party, deploying stuff that was ALREADY there for years?
We’re supposed to applaud that, after all the bullshit THEY did?
Nope. Not gonna happen.
The only solution is to continue “robbing” them of their pwecious widdle monopoly privilege until every corporation involved in the “copyright industry” is completely and utterly destroyed.
And Y’know what? You know the corporate shitbags are really desperate when they do propaganda nonsense like these “conferences”.
Was there any dialog back when they destroyed Napster?
They know they’re irretrievably fucked, and there’s no way back, so they bring the “crony capitalism” out into the open with all of their bills and enforcement bullshit, desperately hoping that it’ll actually make a difference.
Only problem is, people aren’t that stupid. You can’t “partner” with corporate vermin, and they know it.
No matter how many “license” deals they cut with Youtube or Google or whoever else, the REAL battle-lines will just move to whatever remains “unlicensed” — and thus, un-tainted. The “copyright industry” needs to be destroyed. Intellectual “property” has proven to be a horrible mistake, in the same way that race-based chattel slavery was a mistake.
Way past time for all of it to hit the dung-heap of history.
Really, we should be aiming for a culture where the word “copyright” merits the same kind of astonishment (or outright contempt) as term “miscegenation” merits, now. Anti-miscegenation laws are, rightly, a think of the past.
All forms of so-called “intellectual property” should be next.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Well said Henry, nothing i can add!!
stw
June 14th, 2009 at 12:03 am
These copyright buffoons only have themselves to blame for the current state of things. They strip the world of the public domain by endless copyright extensions. Every cool new technology that comes along, they do their best to sue out of existence, and have the gall to insinuate that technology creators should come ask for their permission, because they cannot create ANYTHING of their own. They launch a terror crusade against ordinary people who have no means to defend themselves, they buy and corrupt governments, drive up the cost of college tuition, infiltrate classrooms to preach their propaganda… what did they expect?
I guess they were able to create one thing… a world full of people who no longer give a damn about copyright. With respect for it now gone, there’s no turning back. They started a war they never had a chance of winning, now the clock is ticking toward their own demise. They are the dark cloud looming over everything, preventing anything from flourishing. Nobody needs them. Nobody wants them. They serve no benefit to anyone but themselves. Without them the world will be a much better place.
June 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property – a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience.”
They can groan away….as long as they pay attention.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Just about every digital media service that exists on the internet today, from iTunes to Hulu, would never have got off the ground if P2P ‘piracy’ had never existed. The media industries, most notably TV and music, were only responding to widespread internet piracy and felt forced to make their product available online –officially and legally. Every consumer of legal online digital media should thank the ‘pirates’ for spearheading this industry.
June 14th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
more like kicking and suing..
June 14th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I would like to hear the RIAA and Directv argue how it was right when they targeted the wrong person and still took there money.
Even when they made mistakes, the mistaken pays the same as the rest. Then they lock this “wrong” person into a confidential
agreement which takes constitutional rights and liberties from them such as the right to report this crime or the right to speak with the press.
Worse, our justice system is well aware innocent people have been made to pay and have had rights and liberties taken and they
do nothing to up hold there oath of office to protect and defend the US Constitution. The giving up of constitutional rights to another
private individual might seem important in a country which asserts itself as “a free country.” How free is it when private people,
“corporations” take our rights in confidential contract settlements. Join us here to free America once again.
http://www.digitalrightownertheft.com/
June 15th, 2009 at 1:47 am
“I guess they were able to create one thing… a world full of people who no longer give a damn about copyright. With respect for it now gone, there’s no turning back. They started a war they never had a chance of winning, now the clock is ticking toward their own demise. They are the dark cloud looming over everything, preventing anything from flourishing. Nobody needs them. Nobody wants them. They serve no benefit to anyone but themselves. Without them the world will be a much better place.”
Oh, we “give a damn about copyright”, all right — in the same way that Abolitionists “gave a damn” about slavery.
In the same way Civil Rights agitators “gave a damn” about racial segregation, and “white’s only” lunch counters.
We “give a damn”, because their precious monopoly privilege now threatens to destroy everything from privacy itself right on down to OWN — rather than merely “license” or “rent” — so-called “content”.
We “give a damn”, because we realize that the “rights-holders” (corporate megaliths) have been fucking over the REAL “content-creators” for decades — whether it was “race records” folks like Leadbelly, right on down to every band that has to sign over their copyrights as a condition of being “signed”. The entire “industry” is — and has been — worthy of nothing but destruction for decades, and they very literally have no “moral high ground” to take, any longer.
They scout for “talent?” Tell that to the poorly-paid (anonymous) session musicians behind Milli Vanilli.
What’s really galling about the copy”right” lobby, is how they’ve pretty much single-handedly fulfilled every critique against capitalism — whether it’s the Anarchist critique that the businessman inevitably uses the State as a tool of coercion (the whole patent/copyright thing itself), or the Marxist thing about “capitalist exploiters” (the shitty “contracts” they use to rip off those they sign.)
Not only have they completely discredited their OWN “industry”, but every time their cronies in various Governments hand them a new extension or try the “3-strikes” bullshit, they serve to discredit all the mythology surrounding the so-called “Free market” economics by which so many of us live (and die.)
Capitalism — at least modern, corporate capitalism — seems really prone to State jackbooting, in order to get what it wants.
(So much for everybody who says there weren’t “robber barons”.)
They also risk discrediting faith in government itself, because when people — especially the “Younger Generation” — see themselves being screwed over in favor of an “Establishment” power-structure, they’re apt to rebel.
Questioning stuff like copy”right”, patents, and those EULA “contracts” bundled with proprietary software could easily get people questioning OTHER aspects of our sociopolitical scene (or even, as the Pirate Party thing shows, actively creating REAL change).
Personally, I hope they keep this shit up — the issues surrounding p2p could really serve to wake a lot of people up, and inject some much-needed skepticism/radicalism into our political discourse.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance.”
There is no such thing as the enemies of copyright. They are enemies of the corporations of ganster who were cntroling the entertainemnent sector until now.
The entertainement industry is the one who demonstrated that the 7 major corporations of entertainment are corporations of parasites who must be destroy ASAP. Thank you RIAA/MPAA/BPI/IFPI/. . . to make us see the light. we know what we should be doing for our countries and now you are doomed!
SORRY!