Unlimited long distance $24.99/mo
- Related Stories
-
TorrentSpy shuts down in the U.S.
August 27, 2007 -
Pro-piracy politician proffers his worldview
August 13, 2007 -
TorrentSpy ruling a 'weapon of mass discovery'
June 14, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Jack Valenti, former head of MPAA, dies
April 26, 2007
Garfield is executive vice president and chief strategy officer for the Motion Picture Association of America, the trade group that represents six of the nation's largest movie studios. He's charged with finding ways to limit the bootlegging of feature films and, as he says, help the film industry not end up like the music industry.
He knows all about the music industry's mostly losing battle against piracy. Prior to joining the MPAA, Garfield was vice president of legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, where he helped manage the court cases against Grokster, Kazaa and MusicCity.
This kind of experience, working for both the music and film industries, has turned Garfield into the face of copyright enforcement.
But at the same time that the MPAA is pursuing a copyright complaint against TorrentSpy, a BitTorrent tracker, Garfield has been named in a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy. He's accused of hiring a hacker to steal information from TorrentSpy's servers. The MPAA has denied the charges, and Garfield declined to comment on pending litigation.
CNET News.com recently spoke with Garfield about the MPAA's tactics and strategy for dealing with digital piracy.
Q: So is piracy growing?
Garfield: That's a good question. We're actually looking at it. In 2005, for the first time, we actually undertook that analysis, to look at the losses that are suffered by the industry from piracy, and we are in the process of revisiting and refreshing that analysis.
My thought is that it's not clear whether it's growing, although my sense is that it probably is. I do think also that it's changing very dramatically as we move forward. And we're trying to adapt and evolve to address it.
Why do so many of these young people see the MPAA and RIAA as one big evil empire?
Garfield: I'm going to challenge your assumption a little bit. I do think that the people are able to distinguish between the industries. But for a lot of folks who aren't versed in our world, it's all Hollywood. So we're viewed as part of Hollywood and all that's wrong with Hollywood.
They aren't able to see the value and hard work that goes into making a movie. It's a real investment. It requires not only vision and great storytelling, but real capital investment. It costs a little over $100 million to make and market a movie.
Why hasn't the MPAA trotted out respected stars to help get your message out? Might it be more persuasive for Tom Hanks and Sean Penn to help sell the message?
Garfield: It's a good idea. We are trying to do more and more to spread the word on all that goes into the magic of moviemaking and the impact it has not only on people's lives but on our economy.
Earlier this year, we put out a report on the economic impact of the motion picture industry, and we had a symposium in Washington. The people behind that were the studios as well as the artists who are part of that industry. That is one of the events that we hope to do, to put a face to the work that goes into the movies.
I'm not of the view that we aren't doing anything. I'm also not of the view that we have a monopoly on perfection. So I think we can improve.
You guys have chosen a different tack than the music industry on fighting piracy. You aren't suing many people.
Garfield: We have sued some individuals, but we just haven't done it at the level of the music industry. Our campaign was different in that it was targeted at education and deterrents. In our testing over time, we started to see some difference. It's not where we wanted it to be.
Some members of the public didn't know what was legal. We're looking to see now whether, after this education, they will act consistent with what they know. Driving drunk was socially tolerated at one point in this country's history, but things have changed, and it's not accepted any longer. Hopefully, we'll get to that kind of understanding and change behavior.
What kind of technologies are you guys using to help prevent piracy?
Garfield: We're at the point where technology provides real opportunity, and it's not just down the road, but today. We're conducting requests for proposals in conjunction with MovieLabs around content recognition technologies. (MovieLabs is a company started by the six major studios to develop technologies that can help distribution of film.)
That testing is still ongoing, but the reports are that the technology really works. It is really effective. You can distinguish one piece of content versus another. That's real potential for monetizing and filtering out copyright content. Technology gives us real opportunities to give consumers what they want while also protecting the investment.
The big studios have just sold Movielink for pennies on the dollar. Google has gotten out of the video-on-demand business. Is it time to give up on the Internet as a distribution method for feature films?
Garfield: I don't think so. It's still too early. We're in the truly nascent stages of the Internet as a multimedia delivery mechanism. We are really just starting out. In time, I think it will be a real medium for delivering digital content.
Jack Valenti compared the Betamax to the Boston Strangler. Critics of the MPAA say his statement was an example of Hollywood's paranoia of technology. Are you guys paranoid?
Garfield: I wouldn't say that at all. The thing to keep in mind is that the development of the DVD and turning the Betamax recorder into a viable piece of technology was something done by our industry. We were behind much of the development behind DVDs.
What the studios do is tell stories, but the way they tell those stories is through the use of technology. We embrace technology and use it to tell our stories more effectively.
If you look at the list of movies that have broken new ground, from Star Wars to Polar Express, nobody would look at those movies and suggest that our industry is afraid of technology. The truth is quite the opposite.
See more CNET content tagged:
Dean Garfield,
Hollywood,
piracy,
music industry,
Grokster Ltd.
People who steal the music and movies associate that CD and that DVD with the stars of the medium. Tom Hanks has a ton of money- and people think "well he has enough money, I can steal from him." What they don't realize is the 100+ people on that CREDITS (that nobody watches unless there is a scene at the end) -- do NOT have a ton of money- and really need you to pay for that movie or that song. The engineers and the day-to-day people are really working for their minimal pay.
I don't steal movies. I don't steal music-- however I DO have a problem paying $15 for a CD of an artist that's been dead for a long time. If the artist is the chief songwriter/musician- the prices should drop when he died, because he is no longer benefiting. I don't need to pay for his son or daughters college. Or his grandsons
But what SHOULD be shown to many people is that USED Cds and DVDs are a viable market. If I really want a CD or DVD, if I know I'll like most of it- I'll buy it, no problem. But I'll check online or (if I could find a local store) Local stores for used copies.
It's lower prices.
Better value
Good quality (they are checked for scratches and such)
and it's better for the environment.
/rant.
QFA:
"We embrace technology and use it to tell our stories more effectively. If you look at the list of movies that have broken new ground, from Star Wars to Polar Express, nobody would look at those movies and suggest our industry is afraid of technology. The truth is quite the opposite."
Nice dodge. Hollywood embraces technology to the extent it doesn't challenge there business model.
Hollywood was behind the DVD only after VHS put to rest the Hollywood's notion that home video would kill there their industry by proving home video sales could be very lucrative. Indeed, a huge chunk of Hollywoods profits are now from the sale of home video..ironic.
So yeah, they'll embrace technology for special effects and processing, but if it's distribution tech, they'll fight like hell to get it legislated sued it out of existence. Only after embarrassing themselves will they eventually embrace it, assuming that didn't succeed at killing it.
In summary, if you drag them kicking and screaming then they will eventually embrace it.
The Hollywood and record labels are going for death by a 1,000 cuts. They continue to alienate consumers with draconian enforcement (DRM and searches at movie theaters), while at the same time turning out content designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If you're dumb enough to pay for their stuff your reward is content laden with technological restrictions that only seem to hamper legitimate consumers...no wonder piracy is appealing. If DRM actually worked, piracy wouldn't be a problem.
Final, if Dean Garfield is representative of the thinking at the Hollywood studios then they're as mess up as previously thought.
Technology can indeed show rights holders where their content is being re-used across the Web. It can also provide them with the context of re-use: Did they copy all of it or just the trailer? Is someone making money off my content? Are they providing a link back to my site ? or, more interestingly, did they place a widget where users can buy the full movie directly from the site?
With this confidence, rights holders can fully embrace the Internet and jump-start the online content economy to flourish.
Good article - I look forward to the day when the headline for stories like these read ?Hollywood?s digital marketplace?
To me it's all a bunch bs, the mpaa and all the crying they do. How can they even say that piracy hurts their industry? It's as simple as this, if you are a movie production company, and you take short-cuts to make your movie, it certainly will fail. It's all what you put into it effort-wise, that's what they fail to tell you. They'll say, well such and such movie isn't selling so well, so it must be piracy, it's probably more like, because the movie sucks, or the production studio took too many short-cuts, or had a crappy plot.
It's all a vain attempt to blame comsumers for poor quality entertainment. If hollywood wants to keep its good name as a standard for entertainment, then maybe they should start a organazation that won't let movies with no thought, or crap talent from even being released to begin with.
If movies these days we're made anything like the movies from the 50's,60's,70's and 80's, with alot more thought instead of copying every movie that's ever been made, doing remakes, etc, then the movie industry would thrive even more.
Why would you buy a movie you know you won't like? Same arguement goes for music, why pay for songs that shouldn't have been made in the first place? Garbage is garbage, you don't go around to peoples homes asking if you can buy their garbage, then why would you pay for something of equal value in a movie or a song?
That's the part the mpaa and riaa don't mention, and never will, because they know deep down it's what really kills the sale, and not pirating.
First, all those antipiracy "warnings" at the beginning of movies that we are forced to sit through in several languages grossly misstate the law. A consumer still has the right to make a copy for personal use (no sharing) and they have the right to resell the DVD or CD "second hand". Do not try to usurp the few remaining rights of the consumer.
Second, I would stop buying all DVDs and CDs immediately if I could not make a replacement copy, because my son is very hard on media, and it seems that the industry allows movies to be sold for a short time (up to one year) and then the movie or CD is nowhere to be found. Maybe if I am lucky, I can replace a ruined copy years later, or never.
Here's a free suggestion - do not take movies/CDs out of circulation - if I could be assured of being able to buy a replacement copy when I, the consumer, wanted it (not when the movie/media conglomerates decided to let me have it), I would not need to make backup copies. And I would pay for a new copy every time, because the quality of the recording or movie is improved as new technology is available. I would rather buy my favorite older movies again on HDVD or Blue Ray, than watch a backup copy.
Third, it is a terrible idea to sue your customers as a busines model. Most pirates are not now nor will ever be customers, so penalizing the people who support your business model by crippling the content and severely restricting the few rights customers have left because you cannot reach the pirates actually infringing is a very stupid thing to do, and it turns off customers that would otherwise support you completely. I and many like me do not like being lumped in with the "pirates" because we want to make a backup copy of media we have purchased legitimately.
Although I know I do not represent all consumers, I used to buy a lot of DVDs and CDs years ago - at present the numbers in my collection are: 3,800 movies, 5,600 music CDs. All were purchased, and 100% are backed up to copies. For the last three years, I have been so disgusted with the music and movie industries' tactics that my buying habits have drastically declined. DRM, copying restrictions, loading of advertising on every disc and the heavy handed-ness of the industry has turned me off completely. Add to this scenario that the quality of US-made movies(especially)has severely deteriorated (in my opinion) and you have an explanation why the studios are losing money, rather than their favorite excuse(that pirates are the reason their sales are down). Your sales are down because people like me no longer spend $400 a month buying your movies.
Finally, stop claiming that copying movies and DVDs is "theft" - it is not. It is copyright infringement.