Source: 'Significant' layoffs at MPAA
LOS ANGELES--Many of the major film studios have gone through a painful round of layoffs and now the industry's trade group is cutting staff, too.
The Motion Picture Association of America, much maligned by file sharers everywhere, has gone through a "significant" round of layoffs, according to a studio source. The source said the layoffs were well over 10 percent and more reductions are expected.
A spokeswoman for the MPAA confirmed the layoffs to CNET News, but declined to provide numbers or percentages. The group battles copyright infringement on behalf of the six largest film studios. How the cutbacks will affect the group's antipiracy efforts is unclear.
The ailing economy is hurting Hollywood and staff cutbacks have occurred at Paramount, Warner Bros., and Disney, as well as others.
The MPAA's leadership is mostly unaffected, said the MPAA spokeswoman. Prior to the layoffs, Dean Garfield, one of the more high profile MPAA attorneys, left the trade group in December to become CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, a technology-focused trade group.
Some of the members of that tech trade group include HP, Adobe, Dell, IBM, and Cisco.
In 2006, Garfield was accused in a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy, the now defunct BitTorrent search engine, of hiring a hacker to illegally break into the company's servers to extract confidential information. The MPAA denied the allegations and the lawsuit was later dismissed.
Elsewhere at the MPAA, the group is expected to meet RealNetworks in court again on the RealDVD case on April 1. The MPAA alleges in a lawsuit that the RealDVD software, a technology that enables users to copy films and store them on their hard drives, violates copyright law.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Having said that, though, the MPAA seems to be a lot nicer than its evil twin brother (the RIAA), so I can't exactly say that I wish it bad luck...not yet, anyways.
I wish publications would stop feeding into all of these false statistics. File sharing in studies has shown to have a net positive effect on sales of quality digital goods. If only all businesses had such a great scapegoat. Why don't you blame file sharing for the failure of Circuit City as well? They sold DVDs too. Just possibly it is the economy and not the scapegoat...
CNET needs to stop feeding into this idiotic mentality of blaming others for poor business practices. I'll be the first one on here to call for they heads of the CEOs because they are obviously showing they can't make their industry profitable under the best year of movie ticket sales in history. Something is wrong and it definitely has nothing to do with file sharing.
File stealers are quick with excuses as why it really should be OK to steal.... the quality isn't good, too expensive, not worth watching more than once, blah blah blah. If you don't like it or think it costs too much, don't buy ---- but don't be a thieving hypocrite and then go steal it instead.
And if file stealing has such a positive impact on physical good sales, why don't you go say hi at your local mom&pop CD store. Oh, wait, they went out of business a couple years back. Wonder why that was.
Treating everyone like criminals hasn't really done them any good, and it's done nothing to stop piracy. It has however made a lot of their customers hate them. So yeah check everyones phone at theaters, but don't surprised when attendance goes down.
"And if file stealing has such a positive impact on physical good sales, why don't you go say hi at your local mom&pop CD store. Oh, wait, they went out of business a couple years back. Wonder why that was."
Maybe it had something to do with iTunes taking off and because major retailers like Wal-Mart were able to get better prices out of labels. Lets not forget there is a lot more competition for peoples entertainment dollar these days.
"Say getting ISPs to cut off file sharing, requiring camera checks at the entrances to all theaters, digital ID chips in all computers, ...?"
You are new to this computer thingy, are you?
What would idiotic stuff like a digital ID chip bring you? I run Linux, and the code to access such a digital ID chip would have to be Open Source, i.e., available to all, including thiefs. This is the same kind of idiocy that designed CSS.
There have always been people who recorded movies, e.g., directly from the projector. The only difference is that it has become easier in the digital age.
Enlightened companies, even enlightened media companies, embrace the change and find ways appropriate for the era to get people to pay for the content.
To give you an example: Some technical book companies put their whole book catalogs online. They still continue to do very good business, even though pretty much anybody can download the whole books as PDFs.
So, whining about "file stealers", is just that, whining. The business environment has changed, so you have to adopt or die.
Here is a suggestion about improving the relationships with the customers: Why in the world, for example, do the studios think they have to force stupid trailers down my throat? And even disabling fat-forward...When I buy a DVD, I want to see the movie, not some idiotic trailers of third-rate movies. Next time, I may download the movie from somewhere, so I won't have to endure that idiotic stuff. So, get rid of the trailers, for starters. See, it is very easy. But it requires a change of your mindset. The people watching the movies are your customers, not your enemies. Treat them as customers.
I am here to push back. File stealing has to go. You're right, the business environment will ultimately adapt----but it is apt to adapt in ways that get worse and worse. If you don't like something, complain about it, don't buy it ---- BUT YOU CAN"T STEAL IT. You do not have a right to see/hear/use it.
If people behaved responsibly and understood the need to pay for what they consume, we wouldn't be where we are. Sure, more and better distribution vehicles are possible. If you want to see them, be responsible, stop the file stealing, tell your friends it's uncool and they are a bunch of freeloading bums. But when people steal steal steal.... expect to be treated as the thieves they act like.
"A lot of people like yourself are laying down a whole lot of flack, trying to say this is all natural and fair to lay cover for it."
I always find it funny when people think they know what others do...
I don't share or download movies. I just stopped buying any DVDs until the "content creators" come to their senses and treat their customers as customers and not as enemies.
Their loss, not mine. I have enough other ways to keep myself entertained.
People in general want convenience. If you provide a convenient service at a reasonable price, they will pay it. Sure, some will pirate anyway, but those people were not going to buy the product anyway. Putting the chains and restrictions on customers only drives them towards other alternatives and hurts you in the long run.
LOL @ simple minded RIAA / MPAA dinosaurs.
Besides, a typical film rakes in more dough now (even accounting for inflation) than the blockbusters did back in the day. There are movies you would just love to watch multiple times without reservation, but these are mostly older flicks now. These days the movies are mostly easily forgettable at best, and just flat-out crap otherwise. It also seems that once a studio manages to put out a decent genre, then all the other studios have to try and get a piece of the action and bleed it dry.
Meh - I'm not holding my breath for improvements...
Think about it a second. Especially a file that you personally own. This terminology is a direct attack on the distribution system and not on the improper act of copyright infringement itself.
The problem here is control and Hollywood is slowly losing control of their lone distribution right. People will not tolerate being force feed whatever Hollywood is putting on the table anymore and it is an exciting time. If I create something I should never have to go to Hollywood and ask "pretty please" distribute my creation so others can see it. This is a time I can choose to simply release my creation in the fashion I choose. The key here is that Hollywood CEOs need to connect with their customers or other people will find a different way to distribute for them. If there was a legal option, I'd say most people would turn to that option. Look no further than the recent success of NetFlix and their streaming. Hollywood needs to get their act together and stop blaming their customers and start selling their goods to them. The gates are open and Hollywood can choose to die trying to close the gates or become a part of a legal distribution solution. I will not tolerate Hollywood infringing on my technological rights to uphold their dying business practices!
B - You do not have a right to create your own distribution medium for someone else's creation!
You don't have to go to Hollywood at all if you don't want to. Nobody says you do (though railing against Hollywood is part of rationalization of theft). Just b/s.
You're welcome to create your own distribution medium for your own works. I invite you to do so. I have. THAT'S WHY I WRITE ALL THIS. But when there is a culture that says "we can take that" no matter what you do.... I think you'll find it truly maddening. The culture of theft can not exist. Just can't. You can't tell me how I have to market. You can't tell me I have to be supported by ads. You can't tell me I have to make less than a burger-flipper ---- just because you want to be able to take my stuff whenever you want. Can't happen. Try it a while and you'll be with me.
That's where you are out of touch with reality. Not only CAN all those things happen, they are happening right now, and they wil continue to happen as technology matures, at an ever increasing pace.
Content / media creators and owners look at this like a football coach evaluating the opponents tactics, trying to figure out how to counter with their own tactics. What they don't understand is that the field has changed, there are now 5 end zones, there are 4 teams on the field at a time and 3 footballs. In other words, thinking about tactics is of little use when the rules the the game itself are in the process of a complete transformation.
See, you're still thinking in terms of a quickly dying paradigm. Consumers are voting with their wallets and their actions and they are saying loud and clear "we don't agree with you, we'll find another way to do what we want". You can fight it all you want, but the consumer has already decided. You can learn, adapt and prosper, or you can fight the consumer and ultimately become irrlevant.
I'll point out that the majority of financial losses from piracy, file stealing, whatever, occur from people that resell the products. I don't agree that it's right, but I also don't agree that it's as pervasive and profit-draining as you seem to think it is when put into context from profits lost by alienating customers.
Most people will pay for something if they're given the choice and ability to from what I've seen. Take a look at the music industry - Napster was one of the first of it's kind to offer online music sales and transfers. It was "Piracy" because the music labels didn't authorize it. Years later, Apple finally gets it through the music label's heads that they have a market for digital distribution, and BAM. Look at the amounts of money flowing through the services that have cropped up - hulu, youtube, itunes... digital distribution is the future.
With this, one can expect to see a loss due to pirates - but when one uses overbearing DRM's, the company and it's legitimate consumers that have to deal with the issues that arise are the ones who suffer: the pirates just circumvent it and continue on their merry way. So how to counter this? In this case, less is more - the less invasive the DRM, the less you lock down the product, the easier it will be for the paying customer to use it. "But it'll be easier to pirate too!" No, not really. It's always easy to pirate it, no matter what you do.
Make a better product. Make something worth paying for. Then make it easy to pay for and give the customers what they want: quality product over the internet. Most will pay for it if given the chance, and piracy will always be there, but offer things that can't be pirated such as better support, extra features available only to paying customers, etc.
So quit the b/s about it being the fault of the people creating the content that people steal.
The culture of people who think stealing is OK has to be eradicated, just like the culture of the wild west was. All the b/s about DRM, privacy, rights to file sharing --- it all reads as "I don't want to pay, and I don't want to get caught." The culture has to go, and with it, the weapons of mass piracy.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars
The presence of piracy distorts markets in many undesirable ways. It even reduces the economic development of underdeveloped countries in some industries --- low costs of entry cause fragmentation that prevent the formation of larger local businesses that have accumulated sufficient capital and can then expand.
Take the case of software, say for designing paper planes. Maybe you really need 1 paper plane designed a week, but the least expensive software available costs $1000. So you steal the software, along with 10,000 of your buddies, all of whom only need 1 plane a week. But what could have happened is that you could have hired a local company to do your design for $10. They'd have enough volume to handle all the local customers, and able to afford the software. It would be far cheaper for the software developer to support fewer more knowledgable customers, it could provide a better product, and it would keep more people employed. The social efficiency of providing tech support to 10000 inexperienced low volume customers is low. So piracy destroys value and impedes social development.
Suing individual customers is not a profitable activity, it costs more than it makes. The idea was to try to convince people they had better stop! Bittorrent et al produce disproportionate losses --- one poor person with few assets can create huge losses for others. Driving a car has some of the same properties, which is why people are required by law to carry insurance.
The fundamental principle has to be culturally ingrained that you have to pay the licensing fee to have access to licensed material, and that this can only be done on the terms offered by the seller. If you don't find that offer acceptable, you are free to do without, not to steal it. When the offered terms are widely followed, then they will be adjusted to a more optimal price/value point.
Done right, an advertising awareness campaign might be able to make headway. You're stealing from your neighbors, your friends, your future employer, your teacher's spouse, your business's customers, your tax collector... whether you know it or not. (See, there's a new angle I just thought up --- prosecute file thieves for failure to pay use tax on the fair market value of the goods stolen.)
"stop stealing and they'd be happy to fade into the background."
That's not they're sole purpose. If all piracy were to stop tomorrow the RIAA and MPAA would still exist because they also lobby on behalf of their industries. For example, Sony has renewed it's push to get the FCC to allow Selective Output Control to allow them to shut of certain outputs on HD capable cable and satellite set top boxes cause they don't want people DVRing HD movies. The RIAA is lobbying to change the rules for broadcaster to make them pay a performance royalty instead of only paying royalties to song writers. I believe the MPAA's member studios filed amicus briefs with the court in support of the idea that Cablevision's remote DVR is somehow copyright infringement. It's unlikely they will fade away.
You don't know if anyone was infringing copyright, so an accusatory post in response to a question about the RIAA and MPAA is hardly appropriate.
- by wannabe_anonomous February 6, 2009 7:42 AM PST
- contentcreator--2008
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by ezeq22 February 6, 2009 12:42 PM PST
- He is definitely wrong there is no acceptable reason I can't file share a song that I would create myself. The RIAA has no right to force the technology to comply to their wishes. I have a right to file sharing technology for my own legitimate purposes. Trent Rezner has the right to distribute his songs if he chooses as well. For the industry to dictate a technology is simply a completely unreasonable solution and can never work.
- Like this
-
- by ezeq22 February 6, 2009 2:28 PM PST
- contentcreater simply doesn't understand that it is not the "stealing" of a 99cent petty good I'm talking about or concerned about. It is the RIAA and MPAA shutting down legitimate technology I am extremely concerned about. P2P is used for many legitimate reasons. File-sharing occurs to permit WOW downloads, creative commons content, linux disros, and any heavy file burden many servers can't handle alone such as popular podcast distributions (yes you can post a podcast outside of iTunes and AOL- if it is popular you will need P2P to distribute) Banning a technology due to some bad outcomes is a horrible approach. Ban everyone driving- that kills people sometimes. Disallowing P2P and file sharing is disallowing a valid form of distribution. Renaming copyright infringement to file sharing serves the purpose of disallowing alternative distribution channels and competition. This result and these purposeful incorrect statements are completely unacceptable.
- Like this
-
(32 Comments)Whether or not you believe with the MPAA that file sharing, file stealing, whatever you want to call it is wrong, or theft, the fact is that its largely seen as acceptable by mainstream society. Aside from the few people who believe that "stealing is stealing" (an argument that doesnt make me fall to my knees begging for repentance, but does give me 'in for a penny, in for a pound' ideas about stealing my neighbors new BMW...), nobody really cares about piracy, because most people either do it or benefit from it.
When something is accepted by society, even if it is considered to be a petty crime (yes, petty.) it is almost impossible to stop it. Do you go 5 over the speed limit on the way to work? Speeding endangers millions of drivers on our highways everyday. It pushes up fuel consumption. It makes us burn way more imported oil than we have to. And yet, every police force in the western world has proved incapable of stopping it. They do punish isolated offenders, but overall each attempt at enforcing speed laws ends with people finding new ways to not get caught, not with them not speeding. Anybody think that any attempt to stop piracy will end differently?
For example this is like the book industry outlawing HTML. Under contentcreator logic the book industry should try to get all web pages published in only pdf because someone somewhere might put one of their books online in copyable HTML. Under no circumstances should an industry dictate technology progress.
Overall, protection of their owned products is acceptable. Dictating my personal use of technology is unacceptable.
Also on a side note- do not take away my right to first sale. I want to own my products, not rent them. If I purchase something it belongs to me in all formats and I will not repurchase it under any circumstances.
File Sharing is completely acceptable. Copyright infringement is a petty crime and results in the loss of 99 cents per violation. The kid being represented by the Harvard Prof is being sued for thousands over 7 songs. If this was simply over the theft of a good why ask for thousands and not the seven dollars owed- treat this crime just like the theft of a single good if that is the comparison you want to make.... The difference in the eyes of the trade groups is because people need to be punished for using an alternative distribution stream. Only the RIAA and MPAA should ever be allow to distribute anything through their channels.
Why can't we download a song through Piratebay and then go to the RIAA website and pay them our 99cents owed or directly send them a check for it? If it was simply getting the product into your customers hands this would be an acceptable action. However, these groups are more interested in control than selling and getting their products into your hands. There are many disgusting aspects to this which most real content creators such as myself recognize.