7 ms·

Beyond ACTA: Next secret copyright agreement negotiated this week—in Hollywood

76 points by tux1968 15y ago

joelrunyon 15y ago
This is just exasperating. For all the work they're putting into creating a copyright regime, they could do build their own netflix and put everything on it, charge $10/month and fix their piracy problem like that. Makes me wonder if they sort of enjoy being the evil villain in this whole thing.
- coderdude 15y ago
  Who gives a crap about Netflix when you're the secret masters of the most powerful nation on the planet?
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when the average blockbuster DVD/Blu-Ray release sells 1-2 million units a month from each individual movie? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries instead of getting a couple million from Starz, a couple million from HBO, a couple million from Showtime, etc just to license a couple movies at a time for their networks? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when they get millions to sell a couple new releases at a time to cable operators for On Demand rentals? Simply licensing everything for internet streaming for a couple bucks a month solves the piracy problem, but it also completely destroys their profits. They make far more money with the current system of physical discs, staggered format releases and exclusive licensing deals for different segments of their library with different distributors than they would make giving it all away for pennies per movie on a streaming service. What did Netflix take in last quarter in revenues? $800 million or so? That's just 4 times the DVD revenue from Avatar. One movie.
  - vijayr 15y ago
    why would they spend insane amounts of time and money on brokering horrible laws? Even if these laws did pass today, they would surely crumble in a few years? Why would they work so hard, to gain the hatred and displeasure of the very public that pays money to watch their work, and makes them rich in the process? As the parent says, may be they enjoy being the villain in this whole drama. If they want, they can kill netflix overnight. heck, they can charge 50$ a month, and many people would gladly pay (I know I would) even if the movies come to streaming a full month later than their theater release date. How long do you think they can keep playing this cat and mouse game? The only real winners in this entire shit, are the lawyers.
    - dangrossman 15y ago
      I think you, and others, underestimate the enormity of the revenues the movie studios are generating. The MPAA represents 6 studios that produced about 15% of theatrical releases last year. They only released 12 of the top 25 movies in theaters too. The MPAA studios alone generate about $40 billion in revenue a year; I didn't try to add up all the other studios, but you can imagine the total revenue is enormous. What they spend lobbying for these laws is a pittance in comparison. Total box office gross was $32 billion last year. Let's be generous and say the MPAA got 50% of the box office sales despite having less than 50% of the top movies. That leaves $24 billion in revenue from their films each year not including the theater releases. That's $24 billion from physical discs, licensing to cable providers, licensing to TV channels, licensing to premium cable channels, licensing to the existing streaming services, etc. If the MPAA studios launched a streaming service at $50 per month, this would displace most of their revenue from other distribution models -- people would buy far fewer DVDs and they simply wouldn't get the agreements with cable networks, premium channels, etc. if customers can already get the movie from this website a month after theater. To make up for that revenue they would have to find 480 million subscribers at $50. Do you think they can? I doubt it at that price point; that's more than most people spend on movie consumption across all channels now. Even if they could do it, those 480 million subscribers would only replace the revenue of the 6 MPAA studios, not the other 85% of the movie production market. Whenever I see a "why don't they just give us what we want and stream everything like Netflix" suggestion, I see "why don't these companies just burn 85% of their profits", because that'd be about the same as far as their financials go.
  - revorad 15y ago
    They could charge $10 per film.
politician 15y ago
Did we expect them to go quietly into the night?
po 15y ago
I live in Japan and here I have seen some talk/debate of wether or not to join the TPP on TV and in the news. My first time hearing about it was on Japanese TV. Many Japanese are nervous about the effect of IP restrictions on the manga/self-publishing industry in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Controversy_over_Intellectual_Property_.28IP.29_provisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economi... There is a desire not to be left out of an important partnership, but they are wary to end up on the exploitive end of a bad deal. I think everyone is still trying to figure out what is in this thing.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Compulsory licensing. Shorter copyright terms. These are the reasonable responses. In politics, you've got to define the playing field if you want to win. If you let the big copyright holders do all the defining, we get more of what we've gotten. We need a different viewpoint to balance things out.
- 1010011010 15y ago
  It's time to not just resist further expansion of copyright and copyright enforcement, but to push back. * Reduce copyright terms to the original 14 years. * Retroactively. * Make copyright non-renewable * Require registration of works with the copyright office * Assess an annual fee proportional to revenue earned from the copyrighted work * Provide for stiff penalties for asserting copyright over works you do not hold the copyright to. * Affirm that public domain works can never be copyrighted. Make them fight on those terms.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    The content cartels would be quite alright with these terms (they'd of course fight them in the short term, though). Their primary goal is to revert us to the days of receive-only information display terminals (TV). To actually push back: * A right to Internet access (RAND terms, no 'identity'-based blacklisting by government or ISP) * A right to personal computing devices (and require unlockable bootloaders) * Decriminalization of anything copyright related, civil penalties only. * A right for one's computing infrastructure to stay intact throughout court proceedings. (Seizing someone's servers gags them without due process).
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
goblin89 15y ago
Just occurred to me: once it'll become too costly to consume, will people just start being creative and make things more? That's a benefit in the long run, I guess.
- lnguyen 15y ago
  They've trained the public for generations to not use their imagination and creativity. The withdrawal is probably painful enough to keep them going for a while even past that point.
- bad_user 15y ago
  MPAA and RIAA are freaking out not because of lost revenue, but because consumers are getting more sophisticated. People creating content is the ultimate threat to their business model. That's why these laws are targeting user-generated content websites.
bad_user 15y ago
The Internet is disrupting old media, content industries, governments and democracy, being the ultimate platform for disruptive businesses, for freedom of speech, for the mass distribution of leaked secrets, for organizing revolutions. After years of laughing about it and ignoring it, 2010 was the year that broke the camel's back, with the Wikileaks releases and the Tunisian revolution and the Egyptian revolutionand with iTunes and Amazon starting to influence people over what's cool or not. It's freaking them out, as people are suddenly able to think for themselves. This indeed is the year of the storm, the year in which they are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
shareme 15y ago
I say secret deals with corrupt politicians means no comprising with these assholes We should now on assume that every politician is bought and paid for until otherwise proven innocent. The tech industry needs to take the kid gloves off
- bad_user 15y ago
  The tech industry is operating within the limits imposed by the government and their shareholders. If the FBI were to shut Google down, even for a couple of days, that would be devastating to their bottom line. That's why there isn't much they can do about it, other than to inform people of what's going on. Ultimately the power lies with the people. It is the people that have to call their representative, or take it out on the streets if necessary, or to boycott the companies involved. Also, we as developers, must fight back by promoting and working on alternative protocols for distributing content that bypasses firewalls and protects the privacy of users.

76 points by tux1968 15y ago

This is just exasperating. For all the work they're putting into creating a copyright regime, they could do build their own netflix and put everything on it, charge $10/month and fix their piracy problem like that. Makes me wonder if they sort of enjoy being the evil villain in this whole thing.

coderdude 15y ago
Who gives a crap about Netflix when you're the secret masters of the most powerful nation on the planet?
dangrossman 15y ago
Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when the average blockbuster DVD/Blu-Ray release sells 1-2 million units a month from each individual movie? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries instead of getting a couple million from Starz, a couple million from HBO, a couple million from Showtime, etc just to license a couple movies at a time for their networks? Why would they want to charge $10/month for their full libraries when they get millions to sell a couple new releases at a time to cable operators for On Demand rentals? Simply licensing everything for internet streaming for a couple bucks a month solves the piracy problem, but it also completely destroys their profits. They make far more money with the current system of physical discs, staggered format releases and exclusive licensing deals for different segments of their library with different distributors than they would make giving it all away for pennies per movie on a streaming service. What did Netflix take in last quarter in revenues? $800 million or so? That's just 4 times the DVD revenue from Avatar. One movie.
- vijayr 15y ago
  why would they spend insane amounts of time and money on brokering horrible laws? Even if these laws did pass today, they would surely crumble in a few years? Why would they work so hard, to gain the hatred and displeasure of the very public that pays money to watch their work, and makes them rich in the process? As the parent says, may be they enjoy being the villain in this whole drama. If they want, they can kill netflix overnight. heck, they can charge 50$ a month, and many people would gladly pay (I know I would) even if the movies come to streaming a full month later than their theater release date. How long do you think they can keep playing this cat and mouse game? The only real winners in this entire shit, are the lawyers.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    I think you, and others, underestimate the enormity of the revenues the movie studios are generating. The MPAA represents 6 studios that produced about 15% of theatrical releases last year. They only released 12 of the top 25 movies in theaters too. The MPAA studios alone generate about $40 billion in revenue a year; I didn't try to add up all the other studios, but you can imagine the total revenue is enormous. What they spend lobbying for these laws is a pittance in comparison. Total box office gross was $32 billion last year. Let's be generous and say the MPAA got 50% of the box office sales despite having less than 50% of the top movies. That leaves $24 billion in revenue from their films each year not including the theater releases. That's $24 billion from physical discs, licensing to cable providers, licensing to TV channels, licensing to premium cable channels, licensing to the existing streaming services, etc. If the MPAA studios launched a streaming service at $50 per month, this would displace most of their revenue from other distribution models -- people would buy far fewer DVDs and they simply wouldn't get the agreements with cable networks, premium channels, etc. if customers can already get the movie from this website a month after theater. To make up for that revenue they would have to find 480 million subscribers at $50. Do you think they can? I doubt it at that price point; that's more than most people spend on movie consumption across all channels now. Even if they could do it, those 480 million subscribers would only replace the revenue of the 6 MPAA studios, not the other 85% of the movie production market. Whenever I see a "why don't they just give us what we want and stream everything like Netflix" suggestion, I see "why don't these companies just burn 85% of their profits", because that'd be about the same as far as their financials go.
- revorad 15y ago
  They could charge $10 per film.

politician 15y ago

Did we expect them to go quietly into the night?

po 15y ago

I live in Japan and here I have seen some talk/debate of wether or not to join the TPP on TV and in the news. My first time hearing about it was on Japanese TV. Many Japanese are nervous about the effect of IP restrictions on the manga/self-publishing industry in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership#Controversy_over_Intellectual_Property_.28IP.29_provisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economi... There is a desire not to be left out of an important partnership, but they are wary to end up on the exploitive end of a bad deal. I think everyone is still trying to figure out what is in this thing.

waterlesscloud 15y ago

Compulsory licensing. Shorter copyright terms. These are the reasonable responses. In politics, you've got to define the playing field if you want to win. If you let the big copyright holders do all the defining, we get more of what we've gotten. We need a different viewpoint to balance things out.

1010011010 15y ago
It's time to not just resist further expansion of copyright and copyright enforcement, but to push back. * Reduce copyright terms to the original 14 years. * Retroactively. * Make copyright non-renewable * Require registration of works with the copyright office * Assess an annual fee proportional to revenue earned from the copyrighted work * Provide for stiff penalties for asserting copyright over works you do not hold the copyright to. * Affirm that public domain works can never be copyrighted. Make them fight on those terms.
- mindslight 15y ago
  The content cartels would be quite alright with these terms (they'd of course fight them in the short term, though). Their primary goal is to revert us to the days of receive-only information display terminals (TV). To actually push back: * A right to Internet access (RAND terms, no 'identity'-based blacklisting by government or ISP) * A right to personal computing devices (and require unlockable bootloaders) * Decriminalization of anything copyright related, civil penalties only. * A right for one's computing infrastructure to stay intact throughout court proceedings. (Seizing someone's servers gags them without due process).
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

goblin89 15y ago

Just occurred to me: once it'll become too costly to consume, will people just start being creative and make things more? That's a benefit in the long run, I guess.

lnguyen 15y ago
They've trained the public for generations to not use their imagination and creativity. The withdrawal is probably painful enough to keep them going for a while even past that point.
bad_user 15y ago
MPAA and RIAA are freaking out not because of lost revenue, but because consumers are getting more sophisticated. People creating content is the ultimate threat to their business model. That's why these laws are targeting user-generated content websites.

bad_user 15y ago

The Internet is disrupting old media, content industries, governments and democracy, being the ultimate platform for disruptive businesses, for freedom of speech, for the mass distribution of leaked secrets, for organizing revolutions. After years of laughing about it and ignoring it, 2010 was the year that broke the camel's back, with the Wikileaks releases and the Tunisian revolution and the Egyptian revolutionand with iTunes and Amazon starting to influence people over what's cool or not. It's freaking them out, as people are suddenly able to think for themselves. This indeed is the year of the storm, the year in which they are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

shareme 15y ago

I say secret deals with corrupt politicians means no comprising with these assholes We should now on assume that every politician is bought and paid for until otherwise proven innocent. The tech industry needs to take the kid gloves off

bad_user 15y ago
The tech industry is operating within the limits imposed by the government and their shareholders. If the FBI were to shut Google down, even for a couple of days, that would be devastating to their bottom line. That's why there isn't much they can do about it, other than to inform people of what's going on. Ultimately the power lies with the people. It is the people that have to call their representative, or take it out on the streets if necessary, or to boycott the companies involved. Also, we as developers, must fight back by promoting and working on alternative protocols for distributing content that bypasses firewalls and protects the privacy of users.