Weinstein attacks "open internet"

[Neu California]

US film producer Harvey Weinstein has criticised media giants Apple and Google for making content available under the guise of "free internet".

"It's a nonsensical idea," he told an audience at the London Film Festival, likening the notion to helping oneself to "free shirts" in a clothing store.

Video-sharing sites like YouTube, he continued, were doing a "massive disservice" to the film industry.

He went on to praise France for passing the world's "toughest" anti-piracy law.

In 2009, France adopted a so-called "three-strikes law" that means persistent pirates can be thrown offline.

The legislation, Weinstein claimed, had "disincentivised" people to "steal" content and had resulted in a "robust" local industry.

The Miramax co-founder and Oscar-winning producer made his comments at a keynote address at the BFI Southbank on Thursday.

During his speech he identified the consolidation of media companies as another threat to independent-minded film-making, claiming it meant that "everyone plays it safe".

"These companies make movies to make money," he said. "We too want to be profitable, but [also] to do something worthwhile and innovative."

Yet his remarks have been questioned by a leading UK digital rights campaigner, who claimed the film industry was at least partly to blame for the losses it is facing at the hands of digital pirates.

"The industry hasn't made their own content easily available for low enough prices to move the market into legal services," said Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group.

"They've created the conditions for widespread copyright infringement and it's in their hands to change that.

"We've seen plenty of copyright markets function and flourish on the internet, books being a great example," Mr Killock went on to tell the BBC News website.

He also questioned the efficacy of Hadopi, the agency set up in France to police copyright infringement, suggesting it had become "an expensive white elephant".

Weinstein's support for such films as Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love and The King's Speech has made him a major Hollywood player.

In 2004 he received a CBE in recognition of his contributions to the British film industry.

Really, Harvey? Really? It's not the internet's fault solely for the piracy. It's just so much easier to pirate some stuff than it is to get it legally, never mind that many anti-piracy measures went too far (SOPA and PIPA being excellent examples), which makes it harder for the denizens of the internet to support your cause.

[Vetalia]

The nature of media delivery is changing...trying to fight it is a losing battle. Apple and Google possess far more might, influence and resources than the film industry and will dictate the terms to them rather than vice versa.

The best the film producers can do is just find a way to adapt to the changing environment...pricing a streaming service or online movie download at a dirt-cheap price would do more to combat piracy than any law.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

The nature of media delivery is changing...trying to fight it is a losing battle. Apple and Google possess far more might, influence and resources than the film industry and will dictate the terms to them rather than vice versa.

The best the film producers can do is just find a way to adapt to the changing environment...pricing a streaming service or online movie download at a dirt-cheap price would do more to combat piracy than any law.

Yep...they need to change their business model to reflect not only a sea-change in technology but also the way content/entertainment is delivered.

[Terruana]

If the film industry wasn't still raking in massive profits despite piracy, I might care more.

Actually, no I wouldn't. If piracy is having that big an effect on his company's profit margins, perhaps he needs to change his business strategy, rather than trying to use expensive lawyers to make it illegal not to buy stuff from him.

[Neo Art]

If the film industry wasn't still raking in massive profits despite piracy, I might care more.

Actually, no I wouldn't. If piracy is having that big an effect on his company's profit margins, perhaps he needs to change his business strategy, rather than trying to use expensive lawyers to make it illegal not to buy stuff from him.

I've heard this so many times, and it's been largely nonsense every time. It's the standing mantra of the intellectual property thief. The idea of "hey man, it's not OUR fault our piracy is shutting you down and costing you money, YOU should adapt to OUR illegal behavior! You should change your business strategy to account for piracy!" How do you "change your business strategy" to compete with an entity that's giving away your stuff for free?

They're not dealing with competition here. If they were, that would be one thing. If their business was being harmed by actual competition, ok, we can say they should adapt their business model to compete with legitimate alternatives of doing business.

But these arent competition we're talking about. These aren't people "demonstrating new ways of doing business" that they need to adapt to.

They're thieves.

And it's the height of hubris to steal something, while at the same time yelling "hey man, don't get bent out of shape about me stealing stuff from you, you need to adapt with the times!"

[Oterro]

Bawwwwwwwww let's shout at the sinking ship rather than trying to savage the wood for another craft, wahhhhh let's act like irrelevant wankers.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

If the film industry wasn't still raking in massive profits despite piracy, I might care more.

Actually, no I wouldn't. If piracy is having that big an effect on his company's profit margins, perhaps he needs to change his business strategy, rather than trying to use expensive lawyers to make it illegal not to buy stuff from him.

I've heard this so many times, and it's been largely nonsense every time. It's the standing mantra of the intellectual property thief. The idea of "hey man, it's not OUR fault our piracy is shutting you down and costing you money, YOU should adapt to OUR illegal behavior! You should change your business strategy to account for piracy!" How do you "change your business strategy" to compete with an entity that's giving away your stuff for free?

They're not dealing with competition here. If they were, that would be one thing. If their business was being harmed by actual competition, ok, we can say they should adapt their business model to compete with legitimate alternatives of doing business.

But these arent competition we're talking about. These aren't people "demonstrating new ways of doing business" that they need to adapt to.

They're thieves.

And it's the height of hubris to steal something, while at the same time yelling "hey man, don't get bent out of shape about me stealing stuff from you, you need to adapt with the times!"

Pretty much. Piracy is stealing and that is just about all there is to it. However the reaction towards said piracy has been hugely disproportional.

[Neo Art]

Perhaps so. Personally I find a perfectly legitimate punishment for piracy is a penalty equal to the fair market value of the media at the time you downloaded it.

What else is a fair and just compensation? You downloaded a movie rather than buy the dvd? Pay me what the dvd cost.

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Perhaps so. Personally I find a perfectly legitimate punishment for piracy is a penalty equal to the fair market value of the media at the time you downloaded it.

What else is a fair and just compensation? You downloaded a movie rather than buy the dvd? Pay me what the dvd cost.

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

I'm thinking more about things like SOPA etc...

[Terruana]

If the film industry wasn't still raking in massive profits despite piracy, I might care more.

Actually, no I wouldn't. If piracy is having that big an effect on his company's profit margins, perhaps he needs to change his business strategy, rather than trying to use expensive lawyers to make it illegal not to buy stuff from him.

I've heard this so many times, and it's been largely nonsense every time. It's the standing mantra of the intellectual property thief. The idea of "hey man, it's not OUR fault our piracy is shutting you down and costing you money, YOU should adapt to OUR illegal behavior! You should change your business strategy to account for piracy!" How do you "change your business strategy" to compete with an entity that's giving away your stuff for free?

They're not dealing with competition here. If they were, that would be one thing. If their business was being harmed by actual competition, ok, we can say they should adapt their business model to compete with legitimate alternatives of doing business.

But these arent competition we're talking about. These aren't people "demonstrating new ways of doing business" that they need to adapt to.

They're thieves.

And it's the height of hubris to steal something, while at the same time yelling "hey man, don't get bent out of shape about me stealing stuff from you, you need to adapt with the times!"

I'd probably start by creating a website which streams my films for a very cheap price (maybe 50p for newer/more popular films, down to maybe 20p for less popular films), rather than charging £20 for one DVD. Alternatively, create a streaming site showing films for free, but do what youtube does and make you watch adverts before you can watch the film, or even do what Demand 5 does, and show groups of adverts at every 1/4 of the film, like an ad break.

And according to this website, the worldwide film industry is actually making more profit now than it did before piracy became such a major "problem", so it's not like they can't afford to offer a cheap streaming service. I imagine most people who download a film illegally only want to watch it once, and would happily pay for it, if they weren't being asked to pay such a disproportionate amount.

Regardless, no amount of lawsuits will ever stamp out piracy. The only way to change that behaviour is by persuading people not to do it, or shutting down the internet, and ridiculously over the top punishments are not going to make people not want to steal from you. I really cannot see any feasible way that the film industry can maintain their desired artificial scarcity of information, so the whole, "change your business model" is less about justifying piracy, and more practical advice.

[Great Nepal]

Stop shouting at your sinking ship; jump off it.
Online piracy will not end and if anything simply grow regardless of any laws put on it; also making enemies with likes of Google and apple is not the best idea since they have shit ton of resources and influence than entire film industry combined.

[Cannot think of a name]

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

Does anything work that way, though, I mean, outside of train tickets? When I worked retail if someone stole some shit from us we arrested them, we didn't get just the value of the crap they stole back. (Incidentally, they acted just like whiny pirates when they were caught, like we were being unreasonable poopyheads for protecting the shit we use to make money, like it was our fault that they were caught stealing...) Is there a model for this anywhere? The company would sue the crap out of people caught shoplifting after pressing charges.

[Trotskylvania]

If the film industry wasn't still raking in massive profits despite piracy, I might care more.

Actually, no I wouldn't. If piracy is having that big an effect on his company's profit margins, perhaps he needs to change his business strategy, rather than trying to use expensive lawyers to make it illegal not to buy stuff from him.

I've heard this so many times, and it's been largely nonsense every time. It's the standing mantra of the intellectual property thief. The idea of "hey man, it's not OUR fault our piracy is shutting you down and costing you money, YOU should adapt to OUR illegal behavior! You should change your business strategy to account for piracy!" How do you "change your business strategy" to compete with an entity that's giving away your stuff for free?

They're not dealing with competition here. If they were, that would be one thing. If their business was being harmed by actual competition, ok, we can say they should adapt their business model to compete with legitimate alternatives of doing business.

But these arent competition we're talking about. These aren't people "demonstrating new ways of doing business" that they need to adapt to.

They're thieves.

And it's the height of hubris to steal something, while at the same time yelling "hey man, don't get bent out of shape about me stealing stuff from you, you need to adapt with the times!"

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of banning the printing press because it meant less work for the scribe's guild.

Regardless of the legal realities, it's time to move on and recognize an unjust and nonsensical law for what it is. There's no scarcity in digital information anymore. Smart people adapt their business models accordingly, rather than try to fight the march of history.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I doubt that it will be long before someone suggests that household internet connections should be banned entirely. Okay, I just suggested that but it would trigger a massive uproar.

Well, I hate to say this but it may be true that restricting internet access to academic, government and commercial use would certainly decimate piracy, but at an extremely high cost.

[Neu California]

I doubt that it will be long before someone suggests that household internet connections should be banned entirely. Okay, I just suggested that but it would trigger a massive uproar.

Well, I hate to say this but it may be true that restricting internet access to academic, government and commercial use would certainly decimate piracy, but at an extremely high cost.

I suspect the elected official(s) who would dare suggest that or go along with such a plan would quickly find themselves out of office, and with good reason.

[Densaner]

US film producer Harvey Weinstein has criticised media giants Apple and Google for making content available under the guise of "free internet".

"It's a nonsensical idea," he told an audience at the London Film Festival, likening the notion to helping oneself to "free shirts" in a clothing store.

Video-sharing sites like YouTube, he continued, were doing a "massive disservice" to the film industry.

He went on to praise France for passing the world's "toughest" anti-piracy law.

In 2009, France adopted a so-called "three-strikes law" that means persistent pirates can be thrown offline.

The legislation, Weinstein claimed, had "disincentivised" people to "steal" content and had resulted in a "robust" local industry.

The Miramax co-founder and Oscar-winning producer made his comments at a keynote address at the BFI Southbank on Thursday.

During his speech he identified the consolidation of media companies as another threat to independent-minded film-making, claiming it meant that "everyone plays it safe".

"These companies make movies to make money," he said. "We too want to be profitable, but [also] to do something worthwhile and innovative."

Yet his remarks have been questioned by a leading UK digital rights campaigner, who claimed the film industry was at least partly to blame for the losses it is facing at the hands of digital pirates.

"The industry hasn't made their own content easily available for low enough prices to move the market into legal services," said Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group.

"They've created the conditions for widespread copyright infringement and it's in their hands to change that.

"We've seen plenty of copyright markets function and flourish on the internet, books being a great example," Mr Killock went on to tell the BBC News website.

He also questioned the efficacy of Hadopi, the agency set up in France to police copyright infringement, suggesting it had become "an expensive white elephant".

Weinstein's support for such films as Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love and The King's Speech has made him a major Hollywood player.

In 2004 he received a CBE in recognition of his contributions to the British film industry.

Really, Harvey? Really? It's not the internet's fault solely for the piracy. It's just so much easier to pirate some stuff than it is to get it legally, never mind that many anti-piracy measures went too far (SOPA and PIPA being excellent examples), which makes it harder for the denizens of the internet to support your cause.

Good piece. My view is that of course companies that make movies or produce music need a rate of return. However in the recent past the quality of movies that hollywood has produced has been very poor. How many remakes/sequels/reimaginings/reboots have been made in the last 15 years?

Is Hollywood going broke? How many major studios have gone bust since the dawn of the internet? Also YT had literally thousands of videos posted by record companies and movie studios. It's a bit rich attacking YT. A website that gives these companies a platform to massive captive audience for their products that they can monetise with advertising.

I live in the UK and the cost of DVD's/Blu Rays/Cinema tickets have been going up and up without a commensurate increase in quality. Cut prices and take more risks with your releases Hollywood. Then I might have some sympathy with the arguments against piracy.

[Neo Art]

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

Does anything work that way, though, I mean, outside of train tickets? When I worked retail if someone stole some shit from us we arrested them, we didn't get just the value of the crap they stole back. (Incidentally, they acted just like whiny pirates when they were caught, like we were being unreasonable poopyheads for protecting the shit we use to make money, like it was our fault that they were caught stealing...) Is there a model for this anywhere? The company would sue the crap out of people caught shoplifting after pressing charges.

Don't equate civil penalties with criminal prosecution. Theft is a crime, it's punishble by jail.

However, when it comes to civil remedies, the long standing legal principle is that you can only recover the damages actually caused to you. If you crash my ford escort, I can't recover a million dollars from you. All I can get from you is an amount equal to the damage you caused.

Unless the statute sets another amount. If you crash my car, all I can recover from you is the value of my car, unless the law explicitly allows me to collect a million dollars.

And with the statute imposing penalties as nonsensical as "$10,000 per violation" and if we consider a "violation" every time i copy any media, yeah, the cost builds.

But when it comes to CIVIL penalties, I think that's wrong, and I think the suit should only be worth the damage caused, the cost of the media.

Criminal liability is a different animal.

[Blakk Metal]

Copyright laws are a lie.

[CVT Temp]

Copyright is probably obsolete. Regardless of whether or not piracy is "moral" or "immoral," it can and will continue to happen, and it can and will continue to become easier and more prevalent. Just like the digital age is slowly killing the right to privacy, it's also killing intellectual property rights. The only debate worth having is whether or not the internet is worth losing these things. It's a waste of time to consider metaphysical nonsense about whether it's "stealing" or not.

[Greed and Death]

Perhaps so. Personally I find a perfectly legitimate punishment for piracy is a penalty equal to the fair market value of the media at the time you downloaded it.

What else is a fair and just compensation? You downloaded a movie rather than buy the dvd? Pay me what the dvd cost.

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

But the legal fees to get that payment would exceed the payment for all but the most brazen pirate.

[The Lone Alliance]

Considering the only thing coming out of Hollywood lately is... remaking movies made 30 years ago in 3D!!!! Perhaps it's their problem.

[Big Jim P]

Perhaps so. Personally I find a perfectly legitimate punishment for piracy is a penalty equal to the fair market value of the media at the time you downloaded it.

What else is a fair and just compensation? You downloaded a movie rather than buy the dvd? Pay me what the dvd cost.

I mean I understand the logic of high fines and judgments, as a discouragement, but equity seems to suggest that if you're caught stealing from me, you need to at least pay me the worth of the thing you stole.

But the legal fees to get that payment would exceed the payment for all but the most brazen pirate.

What the hell do you think Neo Art is after?

[Genivaria]

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Accompanies the Secret Project "The Planetary Datalinks"
--Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

He is fighting against something he cannot win without radically cutting off the rights of the people. And I think we can all figure out what will happen when such an act is thought of, let alone put into place. Businesses should be adapting to the changing market climates and their consumers, not trying to force consumers into a model that has been failing for years at the expense of the buyer.

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Accompanies the Secret Project "The Planetary Datalinks"
--Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

I like this quote.

[Genivaria]

Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Accompanies the Secret Project "The Planetary Datalinks"
--Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

I like this quote.

Tis one of my favorites.