It's Creativity, Stupid -- Protect It
Hugh Jackman says he is "heartbroken" his new film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was leaked online a month before its official release. ''It's a serious crime and there's no doubt it's very disappointing - I was heartbroken by it,'' Jackman said. ''Obviously people are seeing an unfinished film. It's like a Ferrari without a paint job." And former Beatle Paul McCartney applauds the decision to send the founders of Pirate Bay (an illegal file sharing site) to prison for copyright infringement. McCartney told reporters that "artists deserved to get paid, and he felt fortunate the Beatles made it big before the popularity of file-sharing networks." McCartney says "Anyone who does something good, particularly if you get really lucky and do a great artistic thing and have a mega hit, I think you should get rewarded for that, and he adds, "particularly for young bands and they've got a young family, I don't want to see them destitute after a couple of years when they were mega. They're going to feed the children on that and if they don't get that money, if they don't see that money, I think it's a bit of a pity. So I think it's fair." (The court ordered sentence)
Jackman and McCartney have joined with millions of others who are starting to "get it"-don't steal my lifetime's work or you will go to jail. Simple concept to grasp, right? Not really. Because we have allowed a whole generation to get away with stealing and done nothing major about it except litigate, and worse, we have created a PR nightmare that makes the pirates look cool and the artists look stodgy. The current piracy issue is fraught with partisan bickering. You have the pirates and their supporters declaring "everything should be free..." and you have major studios and labels suing as their business strategy. One of the quotes that struck me as so out-of-touch was Peter Sunde's (one of the Pirate Bay founders) lawyer describing the Pirate Bay verdict as "a battle between the corporate world and a generation of young people who want to take part in new technology..." That's nonsense. Stealing is not "taking part in new technology." This generation's laissez-faire attitude toward copyright that Sunde's lawyer is referring to is our fault. We have fundamentally failed to educate an entire generation and we are working on the second. And the failure starts here in the US. Intellectual property is one of our biggest exports and yet we fail to teach our children not to steal it on the internet. U.S. intellectual property is worth approximately $5-5.5 trillion dollars per year to the economy- obviously entertainment is only a portion of that figure. I would think in a country where manufacturing has taken a huge hit (witness the auto industry) we might want to put a little effort into teaching our population why music, movies, software and games are not free just because you can find them on a website. We now live in a society where you either wash the car or design the car, but you no longer manufacture it in the US. We should start making a better effort at making sure people understand that this is about jobs and the economy. The bulk of the movie and music industry jobs are good solid middle class jobs.
The impact on middle class workers, present and future, gets lost in a sea of rhetoric. The issue has become polarized and the good guys look bad and the bad guys look cool. These guys are the 21st century version of the Sopranos. They appear to be beyond hip and cool, but the bottom line is they are ignorant, selfish criminals who make money off other peoples work. A perfect example of that is the motley crew of Pirate Bay describe themselves as "heroes" and as they say, "as in all good movies the heroes lose in the beginning, but have an epic victory in the end - that's the only thing Hollywood ever taught us..." If that is the only lesson these "bandits" have taken away from Hollywood, then they clearly have not been paying attention to this industry. It is an industry where artists get paid for creating movies people want to see, games people want to play, music people want to listen to and television people want to watch - and yes as part of this system there are giant corporate conglomerates that make much of the business possible, so they get paid as well.
While I would agree that in order to win over Pirate Bay users, content owners need to loosen up their relationship with technology and stop using litigation as a business strategy. Clearly consumers want to get their content, whether it is TV, movies, music, UGC on the internet- Comscore's Video Metrix data shows that U.S. Internet users viewed 13.1 billion online videos during the month of February alone - that is a lot of online viewing! This data proves that there is a legitimate business to be had in distributing content on the internet - the consumer is there, now we need to teach them that Pirate Bay (and sites like it) should not be their number one choice in entertainment shopping.
File sharing won't go away, and frankly, it shouldn't. Consumers want it and demand it and should have it. The entertainment industry needs to address it in a committed fashion. But does the imprisonment of the Pirate Bay owners accomplish anything? Absolutely. Does it decrease piracy, encourage inventors and entrepreneurs not to promote stealing as a business model or does it just increase the partisan sound-bite war? It does a little of both, it educates and reminds everyone it is illegal to steal. And that education ultimately protects jobs in the intellectual property field. I happen to know it has an impact first hand - While I was the VP of Intellectual Property Enforcement at MGM Studios, I found Randy Guthrie illegally selling MGM's prized franchise, boxed sets of James Bond movies online. As a result of my efforts to track him down with law enforcement, Guthrie, an American citizen, spent years in a Chinese prison (that cannot be pleasant) and was extradited to the US to continue a long sentence in a Mississippi prison and pay a huge fine. This story got a tremendous amount of press around the world. And it reminds people that stealing movies is a crime and when you get caught, the penalty is steep. What's the lesson here? It is important to protect creativity - and that just doesn't mean actors and directors. It means struggling writers, make up artists, set designers and assistants. We need to actively pursue these bottom feeders that sell America's creativity for their own benefit while simultaneously educating our young people and challenging them to come up with new business models to match today's technology. That would be heroic.
Our children should understand the relationship between technology and entertainment-they have always been intertwined - (what industry first embraced technology, motion pictures, it is called the camera) and cannot live without each other. While the relationship has been tense at times: the player piano, the television, the VCR - all predicted to "end the business..." and none did, what they did do was create new revenue streams and grow the business like never before. And then along came Napster - and unfortunately the music business' reaction was to ignore and then once the technology was firmly in place, sue the consumer and the creators of the technology. And we all know how that has worked out.
History shows that major innovations create major opportunities. The visionaries benefit, the fearful resist and languish. The key has always been seeing the change and adapting. Something that music has failed to do, and something that the studios need to hasten. There are so many legitimate video and music sites that compensate artists and the studios and labels that support them, using the very same technology that the pirate's use - our job is to make sure the population knows the difference.
Evolve and educate.
Laura Tunberg is a Digital Content Strategist at We Get It Consulting and Former VP of Intellectual Property Enforcement, MGM Studios.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, everybody seems to have forgot the old k7 tape, haven´t they?
If I remember correctly, you would listen to music on the radio and record a k7, and not pay a dime over it, or you could get that (expensive) LP and record it too, to listen in your house, and nobody would be the least bothered by it.
What has changed?
Technology now alow us to "get " the music from everywhere and, considering that almost all the records only have two or three really good songs, you don´t buy them, it´s as simple as that.
What is needed is a legal and acceptable way to download what you like, when you like, for a reasonable price. Itunes is still making money. Why isn´t the Music Industry working with Microsoft, Google, Apple or who cares what company to create something that works?
Don´t forget that this industry is one plagued by bad actions, corruption, horrible management and tales of mistakes hundreds of miles long. Those guys are only trying to milk the cow to the very end..They do not have the best interest of the musician or the consumer at heart, IMHO.
Laura- you miss the point entirely. The problem isn't with the young generation's lazy attitude towards copyright law; it's big-business, lobbyists' and politicians' draconian, oppressive views. If you think understanding of copyright is the same now as it was 100 years ago, you're sadly mistaken.
Many times the copyright laws have been rewritten to protect the "products" of huge corporations like Disney. The laws of yesteryear regarding copyright would allow characters like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN today. Limitations would have expired long ago. AS IT SHOULD BE. To allow huge corporations simply get politicians to rewrite the copyright laws every few years to protect themselves essentially means that nothing- NOTHING- will EVER fall into the public domain ever again. Bad idea. Why should we care in the slightest when millionaires are denied a couple more million? It used to be understood that the original creator of something got to reap the benefit of their creation for a certain number of years, but after that, it was up for grabs and was no longer solely theirs. Redefining copyright to favor the huge business interests is at the root of the problem you describe- NOT the kids who ignore these horribly lopsided laws. You and your crowd need to rethink what you've done to copyright law over the last 50 years and conclude that YOU are to blame for this current situation as much as those who don't agree with the current laws.
Agreed, copyright laws are wielded more as a weapon than as a means of redress.
Large companies have used copyright law against genuine innovation when it supported their preeminence, and they have dismissed it entirely when it challenged it (eg Microsoft vs Netscape).
It is amusing to see large companies struggling with the Chinese dilemma: there is so much money to be made in the short term by manufacturing in China and India, but copyright laws are not respected or enforced. Ironically, the Chinese have overtaken several western technologies (automated medical diagnostics, cellular phone technology, ...), and they are now very reluctant to market it in the west for fear of the technology being stolen.
I agree that copyright has been extended too long but that's a different debate because, let's face it, it isn't Steamboat Willie cartoons that today's "kids" are downloading. Likewise, your point about millionaires may be ideologically satisfying, but it isn't central to the main problem, which is that a large segment of the population feels entitled to the work of others FOR FREE.
This entitlement mentality is made to sound noble because the content owners include evil corporate interests, but these kids would still be stealing as a first resort if the content owners were the most noble, inspiring people in the history of the world. None of these "Robin Hood" types who denounce studio executives and record labels are sending personal checks to the artists. (And, of course, nobody even thinks about the people who do the electrical work, the accounting, or the driving.)
But so far, nobody has made an argument justifying a right to steal. The nobility or lack thereof of the content owner isn't relevant.
I don't see this as a different debate. What I see is an either an intuitive or an overt rejection by this generation of the legal definition of copyrights as it has been encoded by 100 years of laws tailored to the whims of corporations by lobbyists and corrupt politicians.
No question this generation has little regard for copyright law. No doubt there will be some middle-of-the-road performers and producers that get the short end. But what I see is an evolution of what it means to create something beyond the strict legal definitions written by big business to protect their own asses and enshrined by politicians who depend on those businesses to fund their campaigns. It's a short-sightedness of the market; they refused to accept that perhaps this generation thinks their idea of copyright is, well, crap.
Hopefully, as the new paradigm develops, there will be found a happy medium between the horribly lopsided laws of today and the wild-west stagecoach robbery mentality of this generation. Whatever happens, there will have to be give and take between the two extremes. If corporations don't give, the "stealing" will only get worse.
Donald Duck and James Bond are not equivalent. Your argument is ridiculous. File sharing and Mega-corporations extending their copyright have NOTHING in common.
YOU have missed the point entirely.
If you don't see the logical connection between the two, then YOU haven't done your homework. Float away, Ghost.
Will that "education" we'll provide include a history of the how the film industry pirated camera technology and avoided payment by fleeing to the West coast? How about all the "commons" material that has been locked up by major corporations?
I'm all for a discussion about intellectual property and believe both sides have merits, but this is short-sighted and biased. You mention nothing about the Creative Commons movement or the fact that for a lot of artist, file-sharing has been a boon for business.
I teach these ideas all the time in my writing classes, but I refuse to give my students the one-sided version being pushed here.
G(Riot)
I had totally forgotten about that! It's totally true- the movie industry began on the back of avoiding payment for innovation. Now, years later, after they've ensured the politicians have tailored the laws to favor them completely, they whine about others avoiding payment to THEM. Pathetic, really.
I am of two minds regarding this post.
First, when the artists start to make more money from their creative output than the executives, then your arguments will have more power, and make more sense. As a member of SAG who has had to fight to get paid for my creative output whenever a new medium has come around, I can never believe that the executives have any problems stealing my creativity for their own financial gain.
However, as a theatre artist who has had two theatre companies collapse even when playing to full houses, I take issue with the consumes getting content for free. Yes we were playing to full houses, but had ticket receipts for only about 60% every night. People were sneaking in, thus depriving our artists payment for their efforts which then kept them from buying groceries, paying electric and medical bills, etc...
The corporate structure has to change to reflect a more artists-centric business model, while at the same time, consumers should be willing to help support their local artists.
Thanks- that's a better way of detailing what I was trying to describe. Copyright law, written and paid for by the corporations, does not reflect the reality of the creative process. Technological innovation doesn't give artists and performers an appropriate means to receive compensation, as the internet has leveled the playing field in ways big business couldn't have predicted or imagined. The paradigm must change, and corporations must allow the copyright laws to be rewritten to appeal to all parties involved; not just the backers, but also the talent and the consumers.
Agree with some of it. But what about intell property this is really NOT that unique, and way overpriced?
Then don't buy it, plain and simple.
The most powerful vote you have in this society is how you spend your money. If people don't support something, the industry will change. Why would you steal and distribute something you don't like? And who are you to be the arbiter of that?
Stealing is still immoral, unethical and a crime no matter how crappy your "booty" is.
It seems the people who argue against copyright are the same ones who argue against patent protection and private property (vis-s-vis trespass).
Whomever they are, seem to believe their desire to have what you made trumps your desire to retain the rights and profits of your effort.
So, by all means, leave your own front doors wide open for whomever, whyever or whenever someone else might want to pilfer from your fridge or perch on your commode.
As many other folks here have mentioned, It's increasingly hard to feel sympathy for an industry that suddenly finds itself crossing the threshold to irrelevance...(especially when they act with such ignorance and desperation).
Distribution of physical media as it relates to goods such as books/movies/music/games etc....its coming to an end.
There is nothing that can be done about that. It's a fact.
legislation will not change that.
Crying foul won't change it either.
Every era of our collective history has had it's game-changing moments: the industrial revolution, the invention of the press. etc. Each time there has been what may be termed 'winners' or 'losers'.
This time around is no different.
Company's that enjoyed a profitable business distributing content are justifiably upset that things have changed.
The problem I see is in thinking that the change can be 'wished away' or sued out of existence.
It can't. It won't.
This is the new normal.
Many artists have seen this coming, and are 'surprisingly' not upset.
An article about American intellectual property that starts by name checking an Ocker and a Scouser?
The American culture drain is worse than I thought!
If you look at the artists who have come out against piracy, you will see a trend, which I can sum up easily:
Artist says "Don't bootleg my music," often with explitives.
Fans say "OK," and stop bootlegging.
Artist sales drop 30% or more.
but don't take my word for it, ask Madonna. Speaking of her, what is she doing this week for artificial buzz since her career hasn't been worth crap since she cussed out pirates?
Exactly!
The fact that bootlegging may support sales isn't relevant to the issue of the RIGHT to bootleg.
If a content owner doesn't choose to view bootlegging as a marketing tool, that is their business decision to make, nobody else's.
When Radio came out, firms sued some stations to get more money for playing songs, now the stations are paid to play songs.
MTV had trouble getting videos, and had to resort to british bands (which started the second british invasion), I'd say musicians don't have a problem being on MTV any more.
People download the free copy to see if they will like it, if they do, they buy the quality copy. But...
If you produce trash, your revenue stream goes down, Hollywood and the music industry have stopped producing quality content, going instead for "the sure thing," canned music, canned plots, recycled trash over and over again. When that happens, you desperatly look for a scapegoat, then you look at online downloads and say "if everyone who downloaded it paid for it, our revenue would be X higher."
But it wouldn't, because the people downloading are either too poor to pay for it, or will pay for it if it is a quality product. By your logic, I should be sued by the department store for looking at TV's and Couches before I pick one to buy.
I watched the latest Batman on a disc so crappy there were parts where someone got up and walked in front of the camera, then I paid my cable provider for a clean copy to watch with my family. If not for the bootleg, I would not have watched it.
Cont...
I completely agree. You make excellent counter-points.
$87 million US market ($160 million worldwide) for wolverine this weekend! So did the leak hurt or help the movie? File sharing may the biggest viral marketing tool ever created and I would not pass Fox having used it in this case!
It's one thing to give something away yourself -- quite another to take it. Don't make the mistake of thinking file sharing is doing the artist a favor. In some cases it is, in others not. The bottom line, though, is it is the property of the artist, so let them decide how and when they want to release it.
I believe the impact is overblown and probably closer to kids doing mix tapes in the 80s! That was also illegal by the way but did anybody care at the time?
By ignoring the rights of the artist, any artist, you take away the value that society places on culture. There seems to be a lack of respect for the hard work of our creative people. Allowing people to steal creative works of art, music, or words from a writer is just the same as stealing money from someone's wallet.
The artist only makes about 5%, if that, from the commodity. Most of their money is made from touring etc. So if you want to support the artist go see there show. It is the corporate power who really steals from the artist.
Personally there are a lot of bands, who i have bought there CD because i DLed a song and liked it enough to go get the disc.
That why the music industry is so freaking out at file sharing because the artists never made what they should from the direct sale of music anyway. When music artists finally realize that if they start giving away their music or direct selling on the net they probably make more money just by dropping all the vulture from the industry. If major artists start bypassing them the useless music industry will literally disappear overnight.
@Eric Dodson "The artist only makes about 5%" on a recording. Says who, you? You have no idea what any specific artist makes on a sale of a CD or downloaded album or song.
There are self released artist who make 100% off a sale...pirates illegally download their songs like anyone elses.
There are artist involved with labels that split all profits 50/50 with them...pirates illegally download their songs like anyone elses.
and there are artist who sign with major labels who get a smaller % of sales in exchange for help and money for marketing, promotion, production, distribution, touring etc...and of course pirates illegally download their songs as well.
the point is that piracy is stealing from the artist...regardless of what deals they do or don't have with any labels.
everyone is into slamming the big bad record labels are just using it as a flimsy excuse to steal from artist.
besides...are you saying that artist are forced to sign the deals they sign? are you some omniscient deity that is aware of every artist deal and the terms and conditions there of?
Again, not relevant to the question of rights. I believe that reasonable downloading DOES help sales, but the owner of the content gets to make that business decision -- not me. And I wouldn't want people stealing "only 5%" of my income, thanks.
I buy a CD and would like to listen to it on my iPhone. According to some RIAA types, moving the music to my iPhone is 'theft,' unless I buy another copy on iTunes. The MPAA thinks they've fixed that loop-hole with DVD's. It is illegal for me to copy a DVD I own to my hard drive, or move to my iPhone. I don't want to have to carry a bunch of DVD's and start up my computer when I want to see a movie, or buy it for each 'device' I own.
People were stealing but also there was no legal distribution of content that gives me freedom. If I purchase a DVD movie, I can't legally watch it in Linux. I boot that PC (same everything) into Windows I can watch the DVD. Someday DVD players will be as rare as 8-Tracks. Unless I can move the movies to other devices, my 'collection' of DVD's will be an interesting (and expensive) set of shiny coasters.
I don't download illegally I just don't buy DVD's. I bought television shows and music on iTunes, but I see no point in buying new CD or DVD's. I can't listen to my iTunes purchases on whatever I want, but at least it's available on my iPhone and I can plug my computer into my stereo. If Hollywood wants my money don't tell me you're selling me something and then tell me all the things I can't do with it.
It's their product, they can (foolishly) tell you what your license allows. You're free not to buy. But you aren't free to make up your own copyright law.
BTW we have hundreds of classical CDs and have never had a problem putting them on iPods and other mp3 players. It's no more illegal than making a copy on tape.
If it is illegal to copy a DVD that will stop being the case soon enough, because it's no different than the perfectly legal copying of the DVD to VHS.
The modern concept of copyright is a misappropriation of the original meaning of the term. Copyright actually started as a Government granted ability to produce literature the Crown approved, literally a "right to copy," or copyright.
Today's use of intellectual property is just as disingenuous, especially in the realm of entertainment. The tired retelling of the same stories and rehashing of the same songs should not be given a government monopoly to profit.
I call BS. Who are the people you are arguing against? The ones who are saying "everything should be free..." ?
Can you name them? Of course not, because it is a strawman.
Engage in an honest dialogue, and perhaps there can be a conversation.
Right now, copyright lasts for 70 years after death of the creator. That is not to protect creativity - it's to protect the profits of the Disney corporation.
Copyright laws are to protect the artist and the family. It is a family's inheritance. How would you feel if you created something that you felt could help your family in the future only to have someone you don't know copy it and make money. It is theft, plain and simple. Artists put work "out there" to try to get publicity to sell their work, to be recognized and add to our culture... not to have people just take it. We are devaluing culture by not respecting it.
First off, copyright was about protecting the artist. It was never supposed to be about protecting the artist and all their heirs. Second, copyright has be extended multiple times in the last 50 years or so, corresponding mostly with the expiration on Disney IP. I'm sure any of Walt's heirs are doing well enough.
Don't kid yourself. Today's copyright laws are the result of MASSIVE lobbying efforts on the part of hug corporations to rewrite the meaning, understanding and laws regarding copyright to protect their interests. Your like the Republican who claims their tax cuts are to help "small businesses and middle-class families".
Read the Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
NOT to ensure that their heirs won't have to work, and not even to ensure that authors and inventors are recompensed to some arbitrary level.
Rather, the purpose of copyright law is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
And the income of an artist's family.
This concept is a modern rewriting of the definition of copyright. Original copyright law, before it was revised by corporate interests, understood that the original creator/inventor of something and their family got to enjoy the benefits of that for a determined number of years under the law, but after that time those rights were transferred to the public domain for public use and consumption. A change in that meaning was facilitated by giant companies trying to protect their asses by influencing politicians to rewrite the laws.
I completely agree! The media needs to join with the 21st century and find new ways to regulate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
