Entertainment Industry Still Can't Get Grassroots Support For SOPA/PIPA, Resorts To Trying To Buy Support

from the buying-support-is-all-they-know dept

We've written about CreativeAmerica a few times. This is the astroturfing operation set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be "grassroots." Of course, as we've noted, they can't seem to find very many supporters at all. In the entire month of November, when there was a ton of news about these issues, it appears that a grand total of 161 new people signed up for its letter-to-Congress offering. In contrast to that, folks protesting SOPA were able to get over a million emails sent to Congress and over 87,000 phone calls in just one day. And how did that happen? Because those of us opposed to SOPA and PROTECT IP just asked our communities, and they did so.

The major Hollywood Studios do the same... and they get 161 new supporters over an entire month. It's kinda pitiful, but it really shows how little the public supports Hollywood in this campaign to censor the internet.

Either way, it appears that Hollywood is now trying to do what it does best: buy support. Since its efforts to just rally the troops directly has failed miserably, it's kicking off a big ad campaign, buying TV commercial spots on both broadcast and cable TV. The commercial itself is incredibly misleading and repeats a bunch of the standard myths:
It also goes with the standard scare tactics of "evil content theft." It's amazing that the industry bigwigs still haven't figured out that no one believes that claim (well, other than some folks in Congress). Either way, it's yet another example of the stark contrast in how the public views this bill. Those in favor have to buy their support, while those opposed just talk to people and tons of people speak out. One of these days, perhaps folks in Congress will realize that these people vote.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:18pm

    Maybe there's a bit disparity of support due to the fact that there are 300 million people who stand to benefit from freeloading and a small fraction of that depends on copyright to earn a living. Just a guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Transbot9, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:24pm

    Yeah, saw this on TV

    What they wanted you to support was in very, very tiny font at the end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Transbot9, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:27pm

    Re:

    Too bad those that profit from copyright are rarely the actual content creators, either due to creative accounting or "work for hire" status.

    Although as an artist, I don't mind doing work-for-hire - after all, copyright doesn't really protect me or my works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

    Re:

    That and the fact that you people keep calling everybody a thief.

    You offend people and expect support?

    Yah right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:34pm

    The ad is just funny.

    - They need to conflate piracy with other things that are more serious because not even them believe their claims are strong enough on their own.

    - They keep using the same language over and over trying to make it acceptable when most people just get pissed off by it.

    Stopping piracy by encouraging censorship is not an option.
    Stopping piracy by damaging other legitimate business is not an option.
    Stopping piracy by forcing others to do your job is not an option.

    And I am starting to think that piracy shouldn't be stopped but encouraged, that way everybody would be able to get a shot at making some money instead of the holder of a monopoly that shouldn't be that long to begin with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:35pm

    Re:

    How does depending on copyright earn someone a living? You mean, like the lawyers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:37pm

    Re:

    Good for you to admit that the only fringe faction in this story is your side of it, the rest of the people are not on your side and you should obey by the wishes of the majority.

    This is called the democratic process, we are not yet living in communist China.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    Confuzzled

    I don't think Hollywood knows that people have more than one box to watch moving pictures in in this century.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:42pm

    "They're stealing American ideas..."

    Um...there are no IP laws that protect ideas, American or otherwise, and there are none that could unless the law enforces mind control.

    Also, if you're referring to innovative things like patents, look to American history and ask where we got a bunch of our innovative patents - oh, yeah: we stole them from the British.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:46pm

    Re:

    Maybe there's a bit disparity of support due to the fact that there are 300 million people who stand to benefit from freeloading and a small fraction of that depends on copyright to earn a living. Just a guess.

    If 300 million stand to benefit from ignoring copyright law then it should be abolished. The justification of copyright is only that the 300 million benefit (at least indirectly). If you admit now that they don't actually benefit then you have absolutely made the case against copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:52pm

    The thing about all this BS about counterfeits for the US army that I don't get is that to build a manufacturing plant it costs a billion dollars, which the US army can expend 100 times that just procuring hardware for it, if they need to secure production of hardware and guarantee reliability they should not trust a third party with it, they should build their own factory and produce the vital parts they need there, make a joint venture with Intel or someone else and have physical control over the production of those items.

    Companies get in with the expertise and know how and the US Army with the installations and money to pay both.

    Have that been tried yet?
    I know for a fact that the government can screw up things badly once they get their hands on a business, that is why they need to provide only the physical installations and the security protocols the management of the rest will be by the other half of the coin.

    It has the advantage that it will produce the parts in loco and use local human resources which means local jobs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:00pm

    I am wondering if this is going to backfire. The ad is going to bring more attention to the issue. The ads may become a point of discussion on a wider range of blogs and traditional news outlets. Those reports are not likely to be favorable if they start looking at the claims in the ads. Some of the sheep in the media are waking up to the reality of what is going on with SOPA and Protect-IP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:13pm

    This is why lobbying should be made illegal, as it is just a form of legalized bribe. Lobbying completely skews the idea that every citizen has an equal vote, because if say 1000 people send a letter to the Congressman against SOPA, and the companies backing SOPA give him $1 million in donations - guess which way he will vote?

    In this country X donations = Y number of votes, and it shouldn't be like that at all. The votes themselves should be all that matters, and the donations should come mainly from voluntary donations from real individuals, with a cap on how much they can donate to prevent "abuse".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:44pm

    It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

    The ad campaign is just standard, more like habit than any expecting results. Only you freetards believe that signing some on-line "petition" will affect the outcome. Geez. Inflated sense of importance must go right along with the sense of entitlement to steal the work-products of others. You take a skewed sample of freeloading pirates who'd be directly affected by cutting off their precious "Twilight" and other crap, mix it with shrill "end of free speech", always a rabble rouser for those whose contribution to the discourse is to write one line of cliched contradiction, and then assert that the public has overwhelmingly decided. Get over yourself, Mike.

    Oh, and QUIT wasting time on such posts. You've still got a lot of work to do on "Step2: ?????". (I'm using that for a while, since can't hope for you to explain your movie example, after 4 years, and idiot fanboys gleefully dodge my point with it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:55pm

    Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

    I sometimes wonder how you function in society, but then I realize you probably aren't a member of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Rich, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:57pm

    Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

    God, you're like an idiot child, bitching just to hear your own nonsense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Re:

    @ Richard (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 4:46pm

    If 300 million stand to benefit from ignoring copyright law then it should be abolished. The justification of copyright is only that the 300 million benefit (at least indirectly). If you admit now that they don't actually benefit then you have absolutely made the case against copyright.

    -------------------

    You went IRREDEEMABLY off the rails by substituting "copyright" for "freeloading". The 300 million who don't produce the content benefit from it being produced. You wish to remove the legal protections that /allow/ expensive products to be made (garage bands don't count) by having an exclusive on its distribution. Without that (practically) guaranteed, the whole system will collapse. -- A frequent assertion, you (standardly) scoff? Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present -- and still can if people would respect the rights of others -- as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:59pm

    Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:01pm

    @Rich, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 5:57pm

    God, you're like an idiot child, bitching just to hear your own nonsense.

    ---------------

    My success is measured by the number of dolts who resort to mere ad hom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Blatant Coward (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:05pm

    Re:

    What I can't figure out, is that if these 'rogue site' are somehow selling counterfeit goods to the government for injection into military supply lines, is how to get the online shopping job at the pentagon.

    Guess that explains the "Camouflage Gift Wrap" option on Amazon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You wish to remove the legal protections that /allow/ expensive products to be made"

    False Dilemma. Content will be created without IP laws and I'd be more than glad to have whatever content IP is responsible for producing not being produced if IP is abolished. It's a 'risk' I'm more than willing to take, my freedom to freely copy is more important to me than the (alleged) value of whatever content that results from IP laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:21pm

    Re:

    That's right ootb, the more people who think you are an idiot, the more successful you are.

    I can confirm now that you are now, perhaps the most successful person in the history of mankind, and that success shows no sign of peaking just yet.
    Kudos to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:25pm

    Re:

    Your efforts amount to little more than cutting off everyone's noses to spite their faces.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Hip Hop Production, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:27pm

    This is crazy. I would say that less people support Hollywood these days than we realize.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:32pm

    Speaking of paying for signatures; a few months ago the business agent of my union local was offering tickets in a lottery for quarterly dues (worth about $65.00) in exchange for signing an online petition that is roughly equivalent to Creative America's. Even with the cash incentive not too many signed though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    ervserver (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Hollywood lives in their own caviar world and are out of touch with reality

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    greedtard_minority_report, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:35pm

    Re:

    Such a sad worldview you have where you lump 300 million ppl together. It just shows your twisted views, and those like you share. Guilty until proven innocent. You are never wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    out_of_my_ass, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:49pm

    Re:

    "My success is measured by the number of dolts who resort to mere ad hom."
    Yes OOTB, you are indeed, a legend in your own mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    So why doesn't those opposed to the bill pay for their own add campaign?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:53pm

    Re:

    This sounds like it should be illegal.

    Heck, if hosting a slot machine next to your house (without a license) is illegal then this should be even more illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:54pm

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 8th, 2011 @ 6:52pm

    Because it's kind of hard for a true grassroots organization to raise $100mil.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 7:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What have the **AAs created?

    Can you credit one song or movie to them?

    Example: Written by **AA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Duke (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 7:18pm

    Populat videos.

    I particularly like the way they have nearly 4,000 views across the three videos on Vimeo, and a mere 5 likes.

    The earliest video is also very useful, as it shows people how to stream films - it's a good thing that sort of thing isn't against the law otherwise the MPAA could be in trouble...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Killercool (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 7:24pm

    Re:

    Well, if you read the article, it seems an ad campaign isn't really needed for the opposition to SOPA/PROTECT-IP to get resounding support.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    bigpicture, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Just a Guess

    Maybe the general public are getting sick and tired of a privileged few getting handed the right to monopoly from the Government, while the folks who make the "real" useful products are always at risk of "anti trust" litigation.

    On the one hand there are the merchandise producers who have a real cost to make copies of their product and are at risk of monopoly charges from the Government, and on the other hand you have intangible producers with little or no cost to making countless copies of a single effort/event and want monopoly privilege enforced on the "copy technology" (another "real" product which they did not invent) by the Government. So they can sit on their collective asses and collect money for a "one time" effort. The working public who have to make an effort 24/7 to collect an income are sick and tired of that. Just a guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Re:

    That's fine, but that's no excuse for us not to have one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 9:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Having an ad campaign was already patented by the legacy industries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 12:15am

    Do you have an Advertising Standards Authority in the US

    so you can complain about the misinformation and have the advert pulled?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 2:01am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You went IRREDEEMABLY off the rails by substituting "copyright" for "freeloading".

    I replaced a loaded, emotionally charged word with an objective one. So I went of the rails by trying to make the discussion more rational and less of an emotional rant. Sorry - you are the one who is off the rails not me.

    If the 300 million can be persuaded that it will benefit them (by allowing expensive things to be produced) then you will win the argument - good luck with that.

    My thesis is that the 300 million don't actually WANT the expensive products - or not enough to pay for them - so under those circumstances they should not be produced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 2:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    OK, let's counter these 'points'.

    You wish to remove the legal protections that /allow/ expensive products to be made [...] by having an exclusive on its distribution.

    Content doesn't need to be expensive to create.
    Also copyright doesn't need to last forever. And you can still make money on stuff that's not covered by copyright anymore. You can still sell it.

    Without that (practically) guaranteed, the whole system will collapse.

    What system? The system that creates content? That's nonsense, people don't need copyright to create works, as the past has proved, with works being created long before the first notion of copyright existed.

    Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present

    "Intellectual property" isn't actual property. And the idea that it is has harmed us more than it has served us.

    as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it.

    Copyright holders aren't necessarily the content creators. And vice versa.

    (garage bands don't count)

    And why don't garage band count? How are they less than those big named bands? (remember, U2 started in someone's kitchen)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 4:09am

    Re:

    Tough luck, bitches!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 4:12am

    Re:

    Like you leading by example?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    NUGE, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:07am

    I tried to leave a comment but you disabled me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    NUGE, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:08am

    I tried to leave a comment but you disabled me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Rich, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:19am

    Re:

    Calling you an idiot child is not an ad hominem. That term gets bandied about the Internet as a colloquialism for insult, but that is not what it means. Of course, I don't expect an idiot child to understand such a big-boy term.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:32am

    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
    -- President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 5:55am

    Re:

    Ad Hom would go like this - "because ootb is an idiot, and ootb believes X therefore X must be wrong."

    However what we usually see is "ootb says X, which is stupid, and therefore he is an idiot".

    Careful examination shows that this is, in fact, the exact opposite of an ad hom...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: Re:

    There are grassroots campaigning organisations that have Ad campaigns - e.g. 38 degrees in the UK.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 6:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You wish to remove the legal protections

    This is where most copyright extremists lose most people. Like it is some inalienable right. It is NOT. It is a TEMPORARY INCENTIVE to assist those in creative fields. That is how society in general views it, that is the terms under which we agree to abide by it. The more the big content industries try to force it into another definition and change the terms of the "contract" with society (regardless of how many member of Congress they can buy off to make laws that favor them) the more people will ignore it.

    Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present

    And who's fault is that, really? Who is it that has been continually twisting the terms of the agreement for the past 75 years or so? We agreed to a temporary incentive. They keep pushing it to a permanent guarantee, which we increasingly reject. The byproduct of which is that copyright gets increasingly ignored. had they just left the agreement alone, they might be doing better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 6:10am

    Re:

    I like the quote.... Especially if Abe Lincoln had actually said it:

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 6:21am

    Re:

    it, they should build their own factory and produce the vital parts they need there, make a joint venture with Intel or someone else and have physical control over the production of those items.

    That's the way it used to be - until the lobbyists got into the system.

    Thankfully it remains the case with nuclear weapons...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:16am

    I copyrighted BS support pleas - I'm suing, lol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    my first reaction was - waaaait, what about that superhit "Don't Copy That Floppy" that all the cool kids listened to in the early 90's ...
    Turns out it was made by the SPA tho =)

    And yes, if your sarcasm detector did not go off, i suggest checking the batteries. just to be clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:54am

    Dudes

    What world do you live in? I enjoyed a couple of hours tonight with real people, who see how piracy dilutes their revenues, pensions, benefits. I have read their union contracts, which rely on the after-markets that piracy devastates. Could you please get facts before you pontificate? We're really dealing with human beings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    NUGENT, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 8:02am

    Re: Dudes

    The "Dudes" post is mine. Not sure how Anonymous Coward got it. Sorry AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So let me redeem him, at least in part. It's the current distribution channels that he's objecting to and the monopoly rents charged there for that. As noted elsewhere, the creator rarely profits from this arrangement as the MO of "publishers" (physical books, movies, recordings through their cozy arrangements with music publishers) insist the creator sign their copyright over to them. So your oft repeated and incorrect notion that creators benefit directly (or often indirectly) from the copyright regime is false.

    As is this" "as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it." There is nothing in the statue of Anne, the original US copyright laws derived from it or anything that has followed in the English speaking world that speaks of "moral rights" indirectly or directly. Once again....copyright came about largely to protect English publishers from bankrupting themselves by issuing multiple editions of a title by an author all at the same time. One or more of whom might, just might, have tossed the author a coin or three. It's secondary intent was the promotion of education from which it's possible to derive that walled gardens of copyright were NOT intended, though in many ways that's what we have and THEN to provide the author with the possibility of earning a few coins. There is no guarantee of that, practical or otherwise, as the book may not sell diddly squat in which case the author is on the hook for any advances and other investments the publisher may have made in them.

    (The same risk applies to the granting of a patent. Just because you have a patent doesn't guarantee that anyone is the slightest bit interested. There are thousands of them collecting dust that no one, other than the inventor perhaps, has ever turned into a product.)

    So it's clear, even to a moron in a hurry, that copyright and/or patent law was never intended as a welfare scheme for authors/creators or those they signed the rights over to as you seem to think. Along with entities such as the RIAA and MPAA and others.

    You also persist in the fiction that signing these rights over to a publisher is an agreement freely entered into by two equal and willing parties. The reality is that is you want your book published (or a fictional movie distributed) you must sign your rights over to the publisher or it's not going to get printed/distributed. In strictly legal terms this is called signing a contract under duress. AFAIK it's never been found that way in court because the applicable copyright laws and regulations allow for this. That doesn't change the fact that the parties are equal or that both parties are willing as one is essentially forced into the arrangement.

    Unless, you self publish/distribute. The latter as Mike has repeatedly pointed out has been made so much easier with the advent of the Internet, things like file lockers, the evil and wicked bittorrent and a host of other technologies. None of which insist on signing your copyright over. None of which negates or diminishes copyright despite what you seem to think.

    They might, however involve a bit more work. As a publisher will demand that work anyway you may as well just do it yourself. (In the form of book tours, band tours, subjecting yourself to endless interviews with bored and totally disinterested reporters, signing books and stuff till your arm is ready to fall off and so on.)

    As a total and complete aside, though you brought it up, bands such as U2 got their starts in a garage not a stadium. It then follows logically and realistically that garage bands do, in fact, count.

    What Richard is saying, in reality, is that if the citizenry has removed its support for, and by extension, support of copyright then it IS time to goes. Not that I want to see that outcome but that WILL be the case if maximalists like you don't compromise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 9:00am

    Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

    It's not being gleefully dodged. You've had many suggestions. Your problem is that most of them involve a little something called WORK. And THAT you don't want to do.

    If you want a custom solution from Mike I'm sure he'll be happy to sign on as a consultant at the usual inflated consultancy rates with 50% up front (pretty much standard), hand it to you and you won't get all that much that's different than you've gotten here. It all involves that dreaded four letter world beginning with W and ending with K. Something you appear to be allergic to.

    Anyway, you've not given anyone enough information to give you anything but the most general response. All you've told anyone here is that you want to make a movie and it'll cost $100 million to make (a suspiciously round number and probably just pulled out of the air). I wouldn't invest in that much less offer any advice. Nothing at all about your background, if any, in film making or videography, experience in directing, screen or play writing, not even the broadest notion of the plot line (after all there are only 7 general plot lines possible), experience in editing and cutting and on and on it goes.

    IF you came to me with a pitch like that I'd kick your ass out the door.

    So you're not being dodged, the question itself is lacking so much information it's impossible to answer in any meaningful way. At least meaningful for you.

    So I'll pass on a freebie. WORK on making a pitch and leave your over sized attitude, sense of entitlement and ego in the parking lot. Perhaps the next three towns away, in your case. Come with a CV and a believable figure complete with a cost breakdown TO THE PENNY, and maybe, just maybe as you're a total unknown in the industry (even porn, I assume) someone might be interested. I wouldn't count on it though. Hollywood has been counting its nickles and dimes since a disaster called "Waterworld".

    So in the end, you'll get what you've gotten now, lower your expectations, don't expect to make a blockbuster first time out, get some experience and DO IT YOURSELF. Save the hundred million dollar stuff till you have some experience.

    Now toddle off or take a valium or both until you have something new and remotely constructive to contribute.

    At the moment you're nothing but a troll and I just fed you. I sincerely hope it tasted horrible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 9th, 2011 @ 9:04am

    Re:

    Cause we're busy bittorrenting the entertaiment industry ad and pirating it. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re:

    Except that calling him an idiot insults all other idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    rubberpants, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    Re: Dudes

    Sounds to me like they need better contracts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Cowards, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Nugent-Dudes

    "I enjoyed a couple of hours tonight with real people, who see how piracy dilutes their revenues, pensions, benefits. I have read their union contracts, which rely on the after-markets that piracy devastates. Could you please get facts before you pontificate? We're really dealing with human beings"

    I work as a grip in the movie business, under union contract. The vast majority of us derive no pension, benefits or any other kind of income from residuals. I am theoretically eligible for a small annuity but the chances I will ever qualify for it are slim, and as retirement income it amounts to a pittance. Most of the people who do derive significant income from royalties/residuals (producers, directors, some camera department) are fairly well off and well paid to begin with and have other retirement investments to take care of them. The exception is actors, many of whom are low to middle income and derive significant income from residuals. I'm not sure about writers.

    The truth is the vast majority of film workers get little or nothing from residuals.

    I'm a real person too. I don't have a lot of money and stricter copyright enforcement isn't going to change that, but at least I have a free Internet (for now)

    BTW: I've witnessed a lot of said producers, directors, actors, camera dept. etc. engage in casual sharing of DVDs and music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    I'mToo Scared Of The Internet, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re:

    "It's me and my buddies against the other 7 billion freetards."
    Solid foundation to live by...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    I'mToo Scared Of The Internet, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 2:11pm

    Infomercials

    I found this propaganda piece hysterically funny. Completely indistinguishable from an Onion produced piece of satire. Well done.
    If only it wasn't ... real.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2011 @ 7:13pm

    Re: It's just that nobody on the MPAA side falls for "astroturfing"!

    Shut up you nigger faggot. Stop saying mean things, signing petitions DO change the outcome. Stop being such a nigger faggot. You should just kill yourself because you are obviously manic depressive. Freak.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Use your fucking brain, Dec 17th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    Are you that ignorant that you think these bullshit buzz words hold any truth? Its been proven time and time again from steam to netflix to rhapsody to spotify, that piracy is a distribution problem. But then again people like you dont rely on things like fact now do you? Im sure you would have agreed with the same people when they said Cassette tapes would ruin music, then VHS would ruin Movies, then again music would be ruined by MP3 players, then movies again with handheld video recorders, then music and movies once more with the internet. You see a pattern yet? Fucking imbecile

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This