60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy

from the no-sense-of-history dept

31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.

No such luck.

CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.

The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don't show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies -- which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is "making its money" off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the "journalists" at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.

A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA's line before, so it's no surprise that he does so again. He claims that "piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office." Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don't want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don't know what they're talking about.

Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry's own numbers:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That's the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.

The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through "airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones." Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?

And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and "popcorn" represents an infinitesimal part of the market...). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:

"Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States."

Except, as we noted above, he's off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of "fact" that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show's reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn't it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton's bogus number? Apparently not.

Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can't be important here, can it?

Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It's just that Sodergbergh says.

And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn't talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn't talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn't talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA's claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn't even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.

148 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Making Magazines Worth Buying: Magazines That Play Video

from the neat! dept

Earlier this year, we talked about how some magazines were really making an effort to make the physical magazine worth buying by doing cool things with the physical product. Most of those were niche publications, but there's some evidence that much more mainstream magazines are experimenting as well. Last year, Esquire Magazine experimented with an e-ink cover. However, it looks like Entertainment Weekly is going even further, by allowing CBS to embed video within an ad in the magazine. Yes, you read that right. Basically, a small video screen is installed in between two pages, and seen through a cutaway. Apparently, it works pretty well, with full-motion video, including sound (apparently somewhat loud, with no volume control, which is a bit annoying).

While a bit gimmicky (and probably quite expensive), it does get you thinking about some other possibilities for actually making physical magazines a bit more worthwhile.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CBS Looks To Put Superbowl Online; Recognizes Online Doesn't Cannibalize TV Viewing

from the about-time dept

CBS has certainly taken a much more enlightened view to online content than NBC. While it's true that NBC is seeing a lot of success with Hulu, the company resisted online efforts for years, and has always resisted the idea of allowing people to watch content as they want to. Instead, the company has focused on limiting how, where and when you can watch its content. CBS, on the other hand, was an early believer in focusing less on control and more on just getting your content out there. For an example of this contrast, look at how the two networks are dealing with big sporting events.

As recently discussed, NBC is working hard to make it as difficult as possible for you to watch the Olympics online, even when its own experience showed that online viewers didn't cannibalize TV viewers -- in fact the opposite happened. People who watched online watched more TV. So why are they trying to make it so hard to watch online?

Meanwhile, CBS, which had tremendous success webcasting the NCAA's March Madness basketball tournament is now working to see if it can get the permission to broadcast the Super Bowl online as well (thanks to MattP for sending this in), knowing that it will likely bring in a larger audience, and increase the opportunities for everyone.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Two Companies That Should Know Better Shut Down Helpful 3rd Party Apps

from the bad-news dept

Having just pointed out how multiple train operators are using intellectual property laws to shut down helpful third party apps, we're seeing a number of stories about other companies doing something similar. First up is Last.fm, which has apparently started blocked a bunch of third party apps that had been using undocumented calls to stream content from Last.fm. Last.fm (now owned by CBS) was in a bit of a quandary, because its licenses with the major record labels (there they go again, blocking innovation) forbid streaming except in specific circumstances -- so these third party apps "broke" the agreement. But... that's not quite true, because the agreements are between Last.fm and the labels, not the third parties. Last.fm has now specific requirement to block others from creating apps. So, yes, Last.fm has every right to do this, and I'm sure the labels were demanding it do this, but it still doesn't make it a very smart move. Those third party apps were making Last.fm more valuable. Blocking them hurts the overall value and pushes people to go in search of other services that are more consumer friendly.

This move also comes right after Last.fm's recent decision to charge for streaming outside of the US, Germany or the UK. This also has folks up in arms -- and is driving away users in droves to other solutions. Last.fm has plenty of competitors out there, and working hard to make its own service less usable and less reasonable isn't going to help keep users around.

Meanwhile, a bunch of folks have sent in the story of how DVD rental kiosk operator Redbox has pressured a third party to takedown its Redbox iPhone app. The app was apparently pretty cool, making use of the phone's GPS to tell you where the nearest kiosk is, and letting you reserve the movie you want. There is some speculation that Redbox is upset that the app also pulls a list of promotional codes, allowing some people to rent movies for free -- but that's a misguided concern. If that's the real issue, then they should just change how their promotional codes work because (of course) the codes are still available for anyone to search and use online. Shutting down the iPhone app doesn't fix that at all.

Still, it seems that both companies should know better. Having third parties build apps that make your services more useful is a sign of success, and should be encouraged, not threatened and shut down. We live in an age where too many people focus on using intellectual property as a club to block any use -- even when those uses are helpful in making your core product even more valuable.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ocean Tomo Patents Being Used To Shake Down Companies That Have Online Recommendations

from the ebay-for-patent-trolls dept

Ocean Tomo is a company that's been around for a few years, trying to establish itself as the auction house for patents. I've already made clear how troubling I believe its business model to be, but the company always tries to put a friendly face on it, claiming that it's not about aiding so-called "patent trolls" but actually reducing the problem of patent trolling. However, that (of course) isn't what's actually happening. A patent on personal recommendation systems ("if you bought x, you'll like y") was bought via Ocean Tomo by what seems likely to be a bunch of lawyers under the company name Quito (though, it's not entirely clear who's involved) and is now being used in a lawsuit against thirteen big internet companies that employ any type of rating system. The companies being sued are: Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo, RealNetworks, last.fm, Pandora Media, Slacker Inc., Veoh, Hulu, NBC Universal, CBS, News Corp., and Strands.

As you look through that list, you'll recognize that some have done significantly innovative work in taking the concept of an online recommendation system and actually making it useful. The simple idea of doing recommendations is pretty straightforward. Making it work well? Not so much. Hell, that's why Netflix is offering $1 million to anyone who can improve their recommendation engine by just 10%. The basic ideas expressed in the patent are not where the value in these recommendation systems lies. It's in the actual effort of figuring out how to make them work better. This patent has nothing to do with the actual success of a recommendation system, but the holders of it may now get a pay day just for holding the patent, thanks to Ocean Tomo's auctions. And, of course, this means that all of those companies that were actually innovating will, at the very least, now need to spend legal dollars defending against this massive innovation blocker.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CBS Goes To Court To Let The NFL Know That You Can't Copyright Player Stats

from the and-it's-correct dept

Over the past few years, there have been a series of lawsuits concerning whether or not fantasy baseball operators need to license player info from Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball lost at every level and an eventual appeal to the Supreme Court was turned down. However, it appears that the National Football League wanted to ignore these rulings, and has still been trying to get fantasy sports sites to pony up to use stats and player info -- despite the fact that you cannot copyright facts. CBS is now challenging the NFL on this, and has gone to court to get a declaratory judgment that it doesn't need a license. It's difficult to see this case turning out any differently than the MLB cases, considering the facts of the case are almost identical.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Media Companies Realizing That They Can Profit From 'Pirated' Content On YouTube

from the about-freakin'-time dept

Pretty much every day or so, we end up getting into a debate somewhere in the comments here on Techdirt concerning the rather important distinctions between "theft" and "copyright infringement." While there are a bunch (the lack of a "loss" on the part of the owner being a big one), one important one is that you don't see anyone choosing on purpose to allow theft of their own products in order to boost their business -- yet, we see folks purposely choosing to allow copyright infringement to boost their own business models all the time.

In fact, the NY Times notes that a growing number of media companies have stopped sending takedown notices to YouTube, preferring to use the videos on YouTube as a part of their business model. Google has helped them out in this manner by allowing copyright holders to "claim" videos that they did not upload, and choose to share in the revenue created by ads, rather than requiring a takedown. Among those who have stopped doing takedowns entirely are CBS, Universal Music, Lionsgate and Electronic Arts. Universal Music is a bit surprising, given how it's been even more adamant than any of the other major record labels concerning how evil copyright infringement is. The NYT's is surprised by CBS's involvement, given that it's the sister company of Viacom, who is famously suing YouTube for $1 billion. Yet, CBS has always been much more open to YouTube, recognizing that if its shows were being uploaded, that was a sign of having a lot of fans, not something to be shut down.

The president of digital media at Lionsgate makes the point pretty clearly. saying that the company:

“[Doesn't] like the idea of keeping fans of our products from being able to engage with our content. For the most part, people who are uploading videos are fans of our movies. They're not trying to be evil pirates, and they're not trying to get revenue from it."

If only others would recognize this simple fact. Of course, a good starting point would be recognizing that copyright infringement isn't "theft."

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Last.fm Joins The Crowd In Offering Not-Really-Free Music; Press Hypes It As New

from the not-as-good-as-it-sounds dept

The press is having a field day with Last.fm's announcement today that it's now offering "free" music. It has the type of "hook" that the press loves. A site that's willing to stream music for free. It's so tempting to tell that story that everyone seems to be missing a few important details. Detail #1: It's not really free. Detail #2: It's nothing new at all. It doesn't let you download music. It merely lets you stream it. And, even then, you're only limited to 3 streams before you can no longer hear that song again without buying it. That sounds quite similar to the program that RealNetworks launched nearly three years ago allowing you to stream 25 songs per month for free. Or how about Napster's program, launched in 2006, which let you stream songs five times for free before asking you to pay up. If anything, the Last.fm deal, with only 3 streams, is a lot more limited than these earlier offerings. And, yet, just as they did with the RealNetworks and Napster deals in years past, the press is raving about this "free music" offering from Last.fm and CBS (owner of Last.fm). The NY Times is incorrectly claiming that Last.fm is "the first company" to do this. Reuters is calling it "free music on demand", completely ignoring the limit of only three streams. The UK's Times Online suggests this somehow is moving the world closer to "legally" listening to free music online. Almost every article on the story has a similar theme, and almost no one seems to note that this isn't really free and it's certainly not particularly different than what's been out there for years. Apparently, if you want gushing press, all you need to do is announce "free" online music, even if the details suggest something entirely different.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Everything Old Is New Again: With MuniWiFi Troubles, We're Back To Sponsored Hotzones

from the back-and-forth dept

In the last few years, there's been plenty of talk and debate about the trouble many cities have had with offering muni-WiFi. There are a number of reasons why muni-WiFi has been troublesome, starting with technology that really isn't designed for wide-area coverage combined with poorly thought out business models. However, prior to the emphasis on "muni-WiFi" with widespread coverage, there used to be tons of stories about much more limited "Hotzone" offerings covering a a few square blocks, usually around a downtown area. It wasn't uncommon for some of these offerings to involve sponsored startup pages as well. With a narrower coverage area, these hotzones still have had some problems, but the challenges aren't nearly as big as covering an entire city. Still, it's somewhat amusing to see people get excited over the sudden reappearance of hotzones, kicked off by CBS's plan to offer WiFi over a section of midtown Manhattan, sticking access points on CBS buildings, billboards and (in coordination with the MTA) subway signs. Glenn Fleishman points out some of the nuttier statements in the announcement, including calling the offering "pre-WiMax" when it has nothing whatsoever to do with WiMax. The service will involve CBS getting to place ads on the start page, and apparently will offer up some local content, though it's unclear what that will entail. Either way, it's a bit amusing to see people suddenly back to being excited about covering a few square blocks with WiFi after years of badly planned out citywide efforts. And, we might want to wait before getting too excited. After all, five years ago, Verizon announced a similar plan, with access points built into old phone booths around Manhattan. Despite later calling the plan a success, it was shut down.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Studios Unveil Meaningless 'Guidelines' For User Content Sites

from the audible-magic-full-employment-agreement dept

There's a lot of talk about the new "guidelines" that were announced today mainly by the big television studios, along with a few smaller players in the online video space. The press coverage highlights two things: this is a big deal and it's notable that Google didn't agree to join. I'm not sure either thing is really true. Reading through the actual principles, about the only thing that's noteworthy is how pointless they are. If anything, they're basically a "full employment for Audible Magic" document in that they require companies to install the type of filters that Audible Magic is selling (though, it's still questionable how well they work). There are some totally meaningless statements about supporting fair use, but no details on how that's actually to be done. In other words, these principles are basically "everyone should install filters that block unauthorized content and... uh... the content companies will remain aware that fair use sort of exists sometimes." That's somewhat meaningless. Google's reason for not joining, even though it has come up with its own filters, is that it doesn't see why it should agree to stand by any specific guidelines that go above and beyond what the law requires, as there could be conditions under which such guidelines hold back necessary innovation. The bigger point, though, is how truly meaningless these guidelines are. If those guidelines are truly effective in stopping some unauthorized content on these sites, that content (and many users) will simply migrate elsewhere. In other words, it won't stop that unauthorized use of content and it won't help any of the companies that have agreed to the principles. That means that the impact of such things is likely to be pretty much nil.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

CBS More Focused On Keeping Fans Happy

from the keep-the-fans-happy,-and-business-models-work-out dept

It's fascinating to watch the different approaches that competitors NBC and CBS are taking to dealing with the online video market. NBC has seemed almost to have a new strategy every day, happily putting videos up on YouTube, pulling them down from YouTube, being happy with YouTube, being upset with YouTube, putting videos on iTunes, pulling them down from iTunes. It's as if NBC doesn't have a real strategy at all -- or, at the very least, different factions within the company "win" every few weeks or so. In contrast, you have CBS, who recognized the importance of online video at nearly the same time as NBC. However, rather than going with a constantly shifting target, CBS's strategy has evolved in a pretty straight line. The company quickly realized that distribution and awareness was a lot more important than protection and focused on getting videos available wherever people wanted to view them (not just where CBS could control everything). That meant syndicating the content as widely as possible and even embracing the benefits from people sharing CBS content on YouTube and other sites. That's why it's not too surprising to hear CBS' Les Moonves respond to questions about NBC's decision to take its content off iTunes by saying that CBS is thrilled with iTunes and sees no reason to follow NBC's decision. The really telling statement is this one: "We look at iTunes as much as a promotional vehicle for our shows as a financial vehicle." That's why NBC is focused on putting up barriers for viewers, while CBS appears to be focused on taking them down.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..