The RIAA and MPAA: Dumb
p2p news view / p2pnet: One of the problems with using a "Shock and Awe" strategy in battle is that you can never tell if it works. Imagine Mel Gibson’s William Wallace in Braveheart announcing to his small army of Scotsmen, "Aye, the only reason we beat the fooken English is because we lifted our kilts and waved our genitals aroond". A blood spattered Celtic warrior turns around and replies, "Nah, fightin’ for our homes and families gave us the courage to fight and defeat them".
"It was the cock-waving I tell yer!" screams Wallace.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has favoured the cock-waving approach in its battle against its perceived enemy (its owners’ customers). The plan is to sue large numbers of people and publicize the actions in the hope people will be too scared to oppose them and, after years of using this tactic it seems to be failing.
Patti Santangelo is the most recognisable person to stand up and fight the RIAA’s accusations in court, and just when things seemed to be going the RIAA’s way, too!
The MPAA (Motion Picture Associatioin of America) on the other hand has tried the "surgical strike" method, and has been having much more sucess. Its actions last week against a number of Torrent and Newsgroup sites have already seen a number of those targeted close shop. More will probably capitulate as the MPAA drags out the court procedings and stretches the indexing sites’ legal budgets to zero.
The RIAA and MPAA have so far been reactionary in their dealings with new p2p technology. Little, if any, effort has been made by them to address the root cause of their problems – perceived loss of income.
The typical tech company approach to this kind of problem is to get a bunch of smart guys, stick them in a room with tens of millions of dollars worth of cool toys and tell them to come up with something brilliant. It works more often than not, as well. Simultaneously, company executives sit down and work out how to fight a holding action against their competitor. How long can they maintain their current profit margins? How can they reduce overheads? How much coffee to the engineers need before the "something brilliant" is ready for market?
This is NOT something the movie studios and record companies are doing. There is, however, one tried and true way of reducing costs during tough times: salary caps.
I don’t know about you, but whenever I see some actor receiving a $25 million dollar payment for doing a movie I get really worried for the movie studio. Don’t they know they’re being decimated by file sharing? Haven’t they heard that their entire industry is poised on the edge of bankruptcy? How can they possibly afford to fork out twenty five million bucks and continue saying that I am the f*cking problem to their bottom line?!?!?
Unfortunately, the entertainment industry isn’t run along the lines of a free market and even "free" markets are regulated to make sure they stay free. If there weren’t regulations in place, they’d be called "anarchic markets" and there’d be thriving, legal industries producing and selling everything from nuclear bombs to organs harvested from African children.
So No. You can’t do whatever the hell you feel like in a free market. We came out of the trees, got civilized and made rules which can be changed as and when they need to be to ensure there’s some level of fairness in the world.
Salary caps were introduced to professional sports to maintain the competetive environment, otherwise a rich team would simply buy all the best players and win every game. As you can guess, this would be pretty damned boring to the fans who’d quickly lose interest. As people stop going to games, less money comes in. When income drops to a certain level, the game goes bankrupt.
It’s well worth noting as well that salary caps were partly introduced to professional sports to keep the fans happy. I imagine it would be very difficult to watch a player earing $20 million a year screw up and continue believing they were worth $20 million a year. Anger towards the player for dropping the ball, anger towards the team for overpaying someone who drops the ball, anger towards the league for crying hardship this season and putting up ticket prices…
Until the MPAA starts being proactive and sorting out the problems in their own back yard, I’m not going to feel guilty for sneaking into a game…er…downloading a movie.
———————————————————————–
Here is a fun game to play. Pick the three things you’d most like to be enforced on the MPAA’s member studios:
1. Half of all actor salaries over $10 million dollars must be given to charity.
2. No actor or director may recieve more than $20 million for their work on a film.
3. 20% of all profits over $100 million made on any movie must be used to fund projects by emerging directors.
4. All sequals must contain 90% of the "stars" that appeared in the first (sucessful) movie.
5. People or companies with a financial interests in a film must be disclosed in the credits.
6. Songs appearing in a film’s "official soundtrack" must be audible for at least 20 seconds during the film.
7. Any actor nominated for an Oscar must have performed in at least one stage production during the previous year.
8. No studio executive may receive more than $5 million dollars in salary or benefits while their employer is engaged in legal action against individual file sharers.
9. All studios must give 5% of their after tax profits to an independent organization for the purposes of commercializineative Commons.
g p2p technologies.
10. Any person working for an MPAA member studio must take a short course in alternative licensing, such as the Cr
Alex H, p2pnet – Sydney, Australia
[Alex is an operations manager for an ATM (automatic teller machine) supplier and he specialises in infrastructure development and maintenance, and logistics. He’s also an[other] active member of the Shareaza community. And he’s just started the Tech Loves Art blog on which you’ll find previous p2pnet posts as well as other good stuff.]
March 4th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I would say the RIAA is dumb.
I would say the MPAA is much smarter. Thier war against P2P has been much more effective.
March 4th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I’d be against putting a cap on an actor’s salary. Were I in the same position as the actor, I’d want to receive as much compensation as I could too. The idea is that an actor can draw people into the box-office on an otherwise mediocre movie. Case in point is Nicole Kidman, she just exudes sexual attraction and can draw people in to a movie like Bewitched.
As you said, though, the market is supposed to sort these things out. If Kidman did more movies like Bewitched then the audience appeal for her starring role would be diminished greatly so she has to be careful about the scripts she chooses. Charlize Theron is a wonderful actress, but the last two movies that she did has damaged her appeal at the box office. Very few actors can do as, Robin Williams did, and even he had to have a “Dead Poet’s Society” type movie for his fans to take him seriously.
The real difference between the MPAA and RIAA, and their tactics, is that the RIAA is trying to defend against a marketing model that is failing big time. I can’t remeber the last time that I burned a CD with music, and the one CD player that I have is broken. Instead, I use my MP3 player.
The MPAA, on the other hand, is phasing out one segmant of the market (the theatre) and phasing in other alternatives. Movie file sharing takes a lot of time and DVDs are still effective as a marketing medium. Movie executives are not worried about their profits because there is still a good market in the movie rental business and DVD sales. If they’re entertaining Bram Cohen about bit-torrent that’s a good thing! It means that the movie industry isn’t waiting until technology blindsides them.
March 5th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Your proposed solution for actors salaries is very obviously demonstrates that you have absolutely no ties to the realities of Hollywood. You can’t possibly understand the Hollywood engine when you are spoon fed information about it by the mass media.
As for the ‘perceived loss of income’, It would be interesting to see the MPAA and RIAA do some sort of market research to see what P2P folx habits really are.
The software industry is really missing the boat by turning away from P2P… I download software that is far too expensive for the typical individual user, use it, become proficient, then recommend it for my office which buys it in bulk. That is a major win.
With music I’ll often try to download entire collections just to have a complete set. When I run into the odd rare album that I can’t download for free, I’ll buy it. This ups sales for the less popular items – another win.
I’m unable to see movies in the theater without a great deal of coordination and effort these days. If I download a movie that is currently playing in the theater, I can watch it at home at will and get wrapped up in the cross marketing. Harry Potter is a perfect example. I didn’t give a tinsch about HP until I saw the first movie, then I bought the entire series of books. George Lucas built an empire on the reality that movies are the bang, but merchandise is the gravy train.
This is not to say that it is all win for the media industry. The clue to this was in my second example: “If I can’t download it for free, I’ll buy it.” The question is, how often do I do this?
How often does the average P2Per download for free when they would purchase something otherwise. For me I’d say 10%…
March 5th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
(I can’t log in to post)
Thanks for the feedback.
You are right, I’m not a Hollywood insider so I can’t accuratly put a blanket figure on how much an actor should be allwed to earn. My point was to demonstrate how silly the MPAA member companies are being by handing out enormous paypackets with one hand and squeezing the little guy with the other. If they are losing as much money from p2p as they claim to be, it may be time to start asking if Bruce Willis is REALLY worth 30 million bucks per film.
So no, I’m not a Hollywood expert. I have however worked for a number of years in live theatre in various technical, creative and managerial roles. From my limited experience working in film, it isn’t that much different from theatre – different methods, but the creative process is still the same.
I get a kick out of watching my friends on the big screen when they do end up getting work on a big film project, but it always reminds me of the times I’ve worked with these talented people on a project that maybe earnt them $0.05/hour.
In essence, my question to Hollywood is: with so many people resenting the film industry for it’s piracy crackdown (read personal copying crackdown), how can they continue to fuel that resentment by handing out HUGE pay packets and expect to be taken seriously when claiming they are losing money?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:34 am
“In essence, my question to Hollywood is: with so many people resenting the film industry for it’s piracy crackdown (read personal copying crackdown), how can they continue to fuel that resentment by handing out HUGE pay packets and expect to be taken seriously when claiming they are losing money?”
Because they could potentially make MORE money? *rolls eyes*
March 6th, 2006 at 3:24 am
I am Joshua Abraham Williamson, I am a Man in the united states of America, Who knows first hand the way in which greed and the impression of ones own power has taken over America. So unfortunately Our Rights have been and are being abolished through the deconstruction and overt violation of our Constitution, by the legislature and the conversion of our gauranteed, and protected Rights converted into crimes. Crimes I might add that the Law does not allow for as they are in violation of Law, since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the highest Law in the land. Just don’t let any of our poloticians, all of which must take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution in order to have their position, know you believe in the Constitution as they will consider you an enemy of the state, did I forget to mention the fact that by Law all of the poloticians here haveing violated their oaths of fidelity are guilty of treason, since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the propper form of government, and the poloticians are just the body polotic. Sorry on to the point. Why do the P2P companies not point out the obvious ?
Censorship is illegal in America.
I know for a fact that the u.s. is probably one of the most censured nations in the world but you couldn’t prove it to the average joe on the street because he sees the news everyday, though he does not realize that it is the only news he is allowed to see by the poloticians, since the rest is censored. just ask anyone who works at a place with a news wire feed, what comes across the wire is about 90% censored, and the F.C.C. will close them down and take their business license away if they alllow any of what is not clasified out, or let any unauthorized personel read it, keep in mind that only almost 10% is considered appropriate for the public, odd considering that we the people are taught that it is illegal in America. While I myself have read two books that I know of that have been pulled off the shelves. One called mazers and lazers. and the other was the published results of a twenty year study of the effects of marijuana, which I might add was comissioned by the legislature, in it’s conclusion the doctors and scientsts invovled wrote that marijuana as an herb that has been missclassified as a drug in an attempt to control it, and the worst they could say after 20 years was that it may cause some pre-cancerous effects in the bronchial tubes, which is a direct result of smoke inhalatoin damage. the book was censored as they started the war on drugs, funny I don’t recall anyone wanting the legislature to be the only “government” in history to actually sign a formal decleration of war against it’s own people. If the P2P companies can come together and hold the legislature to the truth about censorship, as denying information is certainly censorship. Furthermore there is no clear victim of a crime, who has done what to whom? and how can the perception of loss in a multi billion dollar industry with no clear evidence, be given weight? Call the legislature on the floor for promoting censorship, and pandering to the lobbyists in hollywood. Oh and do it so loudly that it can’t be kept from the people and you just might help put America Back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the despots who now control her, through lies, fraud intimidation, and of course censorship, for after all those of us who have taken time to understand the truths of history instead of the politically correct garbage we are allowed to see, read and hear. Know that “to control the media is to control the minds”.
In case one was wondering how the poloticians get away with what they do when to do it is unConstitutional the poloticians have subverted the Legal system and violated the checks and balances system by taking control of what is supposed to be the courts by imposing what they call mandatory minimums which takes both the judge and justice out of the equation by haveing an administrator in an administrative unit, call itself a judge and court of law. Unfortunately for us this leaves an apperance of justice in a system that is only telling you what the legislature has told them to tell you, and people wonder why the jails and prisons are full of those whe are only guilty of exercising their Rights while some of the biggest criminals in the country are running around fouling up the planet.
P.S. if anyone knows of a way to get an international body of Law involved I would certainly file charges against the body polotic for treason and try to return America to her peaceful glory, and not to ruin by the greed and whims of those who have no alliby nor excuse for what they have done and are doing. Joshua Abraham Williamson druiddoman@yahoo.com
March 6th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Quote:
“Case in point is Nicole Kidman, she just exudes sexual attraction and can draw people in to a movie ”
eh? go watch a porn movie then. You’rs is a silly comment (but i admit, true.. so freakin sad).
March 6th, 2006 at 7:51 am
I agree about actors salaries.
Some of these comments, you’re kidding, right? $5m isn’t enough? Do you know that in Australia some actors have to apply for government grants to just survive? And last year, Drama actors went on strike for a pay rise as they wern’t meeting basic living costs.
$5m is more than enough. What are they gonna do…go into porn or something? They don’t have too many options. Brittain doesn’t pay big. Maybe Bollywood would take them. Not at $5m a pop though.
The real joke in this is yes, it’s all reduced to economics. The concept of artistic value is void in these discussions. Just because Jolie has more lips than if she put on fake wax lips, all of a sudden her prancing around in a poorly-written Mr and Mrs Smith is worth millions. What a joke! Prove to me half these “Hollywood actors” can act and that there aren’t amateurs out there who wouldn’t do a better (and cheaper) job.
And because it’s all economics, the fact that there’s someone out there who wants to see Mr and Mrs Smith, but doesn’t want to fork out $30 for the experience, isn’t good enough for those who earn millions. This is what the real Hollywood is like, wake up and smell the coffee. Movies are pressed out like cans, without much forethought or real emotion, and like cans, are hollow and tinney. Nobody cares about their “artisic creation”. If they did, then they’d be thrilled they’re reaching more people today than ever before.
What’s even more corrupt is that half of these millionare executives are wormed their way into Washington and are lobbying for “tougher laws” and “reduced privacy”. Isn’t a free and healthy Media the heart of a society? America’s one seems to be not only corrupt but corrupting.
I agree. If a company has an outmoded business model, fix it. Don’t go looking for scapegoats.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
(I have to apologize for the odd angles in my post – I was interrupted before I could proofread – and before I could finish
Continued…
I’d say that I download things I’d ordinarily purchase about 10% of the time. The question is, does this constitute an ‘actionable loss’ – meaning a loss that requires laser pinpoint litigation? No, not really… especially when the other 90% is responsible for sparking OTHER purchases that I wouldn’t have ordinarily made.
But what of others? What if the “Could have bought it but didn’t” percentage was 20%… or 80%? Does that warrant litigation? Again, I don’t think so – and here is why:
If people are widely stealing your intellectual property, then perhaps you should re-examine how you make your money.
P2P caused a significant change in the consumption of media. Media producers are panicking because their business analysts can’t wrap their heads around this shift in the dynamic. The first company who figures out how to leverage the new dynamic will dominate the market.
Before you can get started with a strategy, however, you have to figure out how to analyze the system. The information business people are interested in (those who want to work the system, not litigate) are things like: How many people are downloading x vs paying for it? Does the free consumption of x lead to the purchase of other things? If so, what? If the consumer is downloading x for free when they could have paid for it, where is the money they didn’t spend going? Does the number of free downloads of X fluctuate with the price of X?
The P2P community is a necessarily anonymous group. The only real metrics available at any given time (apart from server traffic) are “How many peers have x available for download right now?” Even then, X can go under a number of different names, can be faked, can be of various levels of quality, and may contain viruses.
So, analysis is a sort of Catch-22: To analyze a system you really have to legalize it so people will be more likely to disclose accurate information. To make the system legal, you have to understand it. To understand it, you have to analyze it.
To avoid this trap, you have to take one step further back and look at consumer motivation. This is called “Market Analysis”
Why do people go to a movie theater? …so they can see a movie that fills their field of vision with high quality video and massive surround sound – something more than what they could get at home.
Frankly, my home theater is equivalent to (or better than?) a theater’s projections system. It only cost about $3,000 and I don’t have to put up with sticky seats, long lines, insane parking and noisy smelly people. So, what do movie houses need to do? Go digital and throw up an IMAX screens. Movies are about a good movie-going experience.
Take another look at software. Productivity tools should be free unless the software is used by a business or to make money (aka the WinZip business model). Regulating this would be tough… but WinZip seems to be doing well.
Music is tougher nut. Concerts are one obvious profit center but I’m not so sure about the music itself. Maybe the recording industry should look at the cross marketing potential instead of trying to profit directly off the music.
The only media that I think is still relatively safe is the fiction paperback trade. I live online, but I hate reading books that way.
The point is that there is a lot more money to be made by finessing the system than litigating it. If you fight the beast, you lose. If you understand the beast, you have a powerful ally.
–IsFeasachMe
March 6th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Frankly, there are some mainstream movies that can get me going better than porn.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:18 am
You are right. Most of the average actors are totally overpaid. Once they sold their asses to the Hollywood producers they only collect money, it’s called business not acting.
March 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
How come people who believe that a market will “sort out the bad things”?, ignore the obvious points that could weaken their reasonings?
For example, how would a market “sort out” nuclear weapons sales and organ harvesting? And don’t forget the point about the richest football teams buying the best players.
Tell me, when you receive annoying telemarketing calls or pushy door-to-door salespeople, why didn’t the market “sort them out”? Unless there are tons of folks who love those types of people (who by the way have killer sales usually – at the expense of suppressing their own humanity).
Salary caps would still draw top actors to bad movies, because the salary structure would readjust so that the best actors are earning the ceiling of that cap, while everyone else would earn less than half the cap, or more than half, but few would earn the max.
And if that’s the case, now a few more movies can afford the actor, and the actor has a few more choices. Instead of being forced to pick between three garbage scripts because that’s all that’s available at the time, there’s a better chance of a good script in seven movies, for example.
There needs to be balance, otherwise you have extremes:
Completely free market = fewer choices, anarchic, fewer innovations, and you don’t know about the “bad” products because the same company owns the review publications and the media which informs you.
Completely regulated markets = fewer innovations, restrictive, fewer choices, and you’ll know less about the “bad” products because the “regulators” will deny critical information (in the interest of “national security”?) to the review publications and the media which informs you.
Here’ a new line of reasoning: A free market under good leadership, will sort out all the garbage. Because if a free market does it by itself, then why do we still struggle daily to be good consumers (so we don’t get ripped off by garbage)?
March 19th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The “free market” doesn’t want to be regulated, saying it hurts innovation… but instead of finding an innovative way to deal with problems (such as P2P), those companies then want to regulate the free people.