Yes, Virginia, The MPAA Is Still Full Of Crap
from the so-many-lies,-so-little-time dept
Time and time again, it's amazing the depths of BS that groups like the MPAA and RIAA can descend to. Doublespeak, gibberish, denial and bullying are their preferred tactics, with the overarching mantra appearing to be that if you repeat something enough times, it will come true. So, with that in mind, witness the Wall Street Journal's latest email debate, between an MPAA exec and Wendy Seltzer, a prominent intellectual property and First Amendment lawyer. Again and again, the guy from the MPAA comes back to the point that DRM is needed "to insure (sic) that most consumers will keep the deal they make" with content providers, and to "keep honest people honest." These comments illustrate just how highly the MPAA views consumers -- not as valued customers, but as criminals who can't be trusted. Also, if people are honest, why do they need to be kept that way? He also repeatedly says that copy-protection is about choice, and that it's created "new viewing opportunities" like ABC's streaming TV shows and iTunes selling a Disney movie. How, exactly, did DRM create those opportunities? They could have been implemented and been generating revenues long ago had content providers not spent so much time trying (fruitlessly) to stop piracy instead of innovating and giving people incentives to purchase content legitimately. What's additionally annoying is the guy's insistence that the DMCA hasn't stifled innovation, but rather "has been an incredible stimulus to both technology and marketing innovation" -- something that's patently false -- and then acts like the MPAA respects consumers' right to fair use -- another total lie. The MPAA and its ilk have been repeating this same line of flawed reasoning, misrepresentations and lies so much that they've unflinchingly bought into it. But unless you're running jails, can any business really get away with treating all its customers as criminals forever?