p2pnet - rss feed: Barlow versus Glickman
p2p news / p2pnet: “The hackers want to break Hollywood on the wheel of their collective ingenuity and show the suits who is in charge,” says a BBC Newsnight item.
Against that, “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.”
So, have, “these two warring tribes” got, “anything to teach one another?” Or, “will they spend yet another decade ‘not getting’ each other’s point of view?”
With this in mind, the BBC spoke to each of the two, “most powerful voices on either side of the divide,” namely EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) co-founder John Perry Barlow (right) and the MPAA’s (Motion Picture Association of America ) Dan Glickman.
Below are a few choice clips:
Barlow: … the entertainment industry is a rough bunch of people and a rough industry. I don’t think that the movie industry is any more ready than any other part of the information industries to adapt itself to the information age. But it’s going to go there one way or the other. And whatever its cries of protest and growing pains, it’ll make it eventually - it’s just going to do everything it can, as the record industry has done, as the publishing industry has done, to stop progress in that direction until it gets its act together.
Glickman: 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.
Barlow: 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. There are a lot of kids out there copying and distributing movies not because they care about seeing the movies or sharing them with their friends but because they want to stick it to the movie business. It’s widely assumed that you can’t compete with free and that seems like a reasonable thing to think. But this has not been my experience. I mean I’ve made a fair amount of money over the years writing songs for ‘The Grateful Dead’ who allowed their fans to tape their concerts.
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. 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.
Barlow: I’ve got good news and bad news and good news. And the good news is that you guys have managed to buy every major legislative body on the planet, and the courts are even with you. So you’ve done a great job there and you should congratulate yourself. 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.
But the good news is that you guys are mean sons of bitches and you’ve been figuring out ways of ripping off audiences and artists for centuries…..
Digg this story.
Also See:
BBC Newsnight - Hollywood and the hackers, June 9, 2006
==================
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
June 12th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“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. 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.”
But there are other laws of nature, among which is “If a person can get something for free, he will”.
That aside, Glickman’s analogies are way off because none of the products he mentions can be reproduced for free.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“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. ”
A few notes to glickman:
1- I’m a little confused, according to all the ad’s you’ve been taking out it’s all aout the blue collar worker losing jobs, not about making sure the actors, directors, and creators get their millions. Though to be honest I never believed you were all about the blue collar worker, just the $.
2 - You know there are thousands (probably underestimated) of actors, creators etc. available to do the work right now, the fact that you find it necessary to overpay a small percentage of them, well that’s just bad business. Or at least it would be considered so for any other business.
3 - Stop putting out overpriced crap & start treating your customers like customers not consumers!!! I think you might be surprised by the reaction you get, as well as the $ you make. But then again your all about making the most $ of the worst dribble you can make.
4 - You act like your supplying a specialty product, i.e. “the magic of the movies” and you price it like it’s a specialty product. But here’s the thing Dan, specialty products have customers, not consumers. Commodities have consumer and lower prices (not to mention product and suppliers). So which is it Dan do you want to treat the public like consumers of a commodity, cause then you have to lower your prices. Or do you truly have a specialty product? Cause then you need to stop pushing the crap and start making specialty products and stop treating your customers like consumers.
db
June 12th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
We now, finally, have clear incontrovertible evidence that the MPAA and Hollywood simply just “don’t get it” (understand the marketplace in the digital information age.)
Mr. Glickman said: “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.”
Here, Mr. Glickman is making the wholly inappropriate comparison of physical property (automobiles and clothing) to virtual or intellectual property (music, video, books, magazines, etc.) In the digital world, the latter can be replicated repeatedly at extremely little cost. Even to create the physical manifestation of such an item the cost is that of suitable blank media and a few seconds to minutes of someone’s time to perform the copying task. This can not be done with an automobile or clothing or an ocean liner or a bag of pretzels.
Also, Mr. Glickman’s statement is a classical example of a fallacy known in the branch of mathematics called “formal logic theory” as “affirming the consequence.” Affirming the consequence can be summarized as, “If the conclusion is true, then the premise must be also.” If A then B. This construct only has validty if A is true. The “truth table” for: IF A THEN B is:
A________B____________A ==> B (or A implies B)
True_____True_________True
True_____False_________False
False_____True_________True
False_____False_________True
(pardon any misalignment as that is dependant on the viewer display font in their browser. The php script unhelpfully compresses multiple spaces.)
As you can see, you can not test the validity of the assertion by merely verifying the value of B as true. Similarly you can not determine the validity of the statement by verifying the value of A as ‘False’. The latter is also a fallacy known as “Denying the Premise (or antecedant.)”
He affirms the consequence by stating: “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.” The assertion is that Hollywood will be driven out of business by people giving away its so-called ‘product’ for free. Similarly “If we don’t allow our product to be given away for free, we won’t go out of business.” is also fallacious. It’s a ludicrous assertion. There are many reasons that entities go out of business, not just from giving away their products.
All of the preceding mathematical machinations are taught in basic computer programming classes, or become intuitively obvious to someone who just starts out on their own ‘hacking away’ (that’s where the word originated, as someone who experiments on their own with computers, there was no connotation of maliciousness when the term started being used in the late 1970s.) on their own with programming. The 17-year old kids Mr. Barlow refers to definitely get this concept, whereas the middle-aged guys in suits are clueless.
No wonder the kids are laughing.
–TurboGeek
June 13th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
From a NYTimes article of 6-13-06:
“Last month, the Motion Picture Association of America started using two dogs, Lucky and Flo, to sniff out DVD’s in the cargo area of Heathrow Airport in London, a major transit point for pirated DVD’s. “First we had Lassie, then Rin Tin Tin and now Lucky and Flo,” said Dan Glickman, the president of the association.”
Some questions:
- An American company doing law enforcemtn work in a foreign country and the agents ARE DOGS?
- And what ever happened to the sovereingty of Britain? Gone along with Irak’s?
- How ridiculous can it get?
- Or is Glickman promoting a new movie version of It’s a mad, mad world?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 14th, 2006 at 7:50 am
That noise you hear is Stanley Kramer spinning in his grave.