Hollywood Agent Ari Emanuel Wants a Magic 'Stop Piracy' Button 269
closer2it writes "At this week's All Things D conference, Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher invited Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel. He spoke about things like TV not dying, cord-cutting being some kind of myth, and that googlers are smart guys and they should do something about the stealing of content. Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him (video) on this point, asking: 'Aren't you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?' Emanuel didn't like this analogy, and even ended the reply asking Topolsky where he works. Mike Masnick also wrote a piece about the interview. I guess that if the Internet has enemies, I'd say Emanuel gives them a face."
Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like both sides were just shouting in each other's direction, not actually answering the points being made. Google are not the copyright police, but they do block child pornography. Come one, answer these points, make your case instead of just repeating yourself.
To be fair the host needed to step in and moderate too. Is this what passes for a debate?
With todays Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
Trade you! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we trade a "Stop Piracy" button for a "Stop Adam Sandler" button? mkay?
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
He might not get a magic button, but he's more likely to get something acceptable to him than you are to get a pony.
Re:im certain (Score:5, Insightful)
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont.
Your solution here is Netflix.
The artist Drake for example is a greedy and despicable person, i relish each blow to his earnings. his lyrics, his engineering, melody and the like are all manufactured to generate profit for clearinghouses and industry executives at the pittance he is afforded. None of it is authentic, thus none of it is art. without art, there is no artist to defend.
So you hate the artist, hate his music, hate his art overall, but still like it enough to pirate. And since you'd never buy from him, you haven't hurt his earning one whit. Son, you're badly conflicted here.
Re:im certain (Score:4, Insightful)
why do i pirate? because hollywood has a track record of terrible films. it used to be critics would help me decide if a movie were worth the $12 theatre admission but now that hollywood owns them all, its impossible to decide what film ill like and what film i wont
Self serving nonsense. Rotton tomatoes comes to mind as one movie review site that does a remarkably good job of correctly rating movies as utter crap on a continual basis.
And you can subselect within that to follow frequent reviewers that look for what you look for in movies. I'm sure there's other places for good reviews as well.
I also pirate the film because its a more usable format than a DVD or blu-ray, which require me to purchase needless accessory players and cables to do that which im perfectly capable of with a computer.
Yes... because your $500? ($1500??)+ PC is a simpler more reasonable solution than a $50 bluray player and $5 worth of cables (which you'd need for your computer too)... give me a break.
do you ever et the feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the links answers this question directly. Child pornography is easier to police because it is absolutely illegal. You can block searches for it. You can develop algorithms to scan images and videos for it. You can target it without pause or question. Copyright is more vague. Is it in the public domain? How do you know? Is this particular case fair use? Considering that Lenz v. Universal ruled that copyright holders can be financially liable for issuing DMCA requests on fair use creations, this is a real issue. Is this a licensed use of it?
Given that nobody really knows what "fair use" is in the digital age, building a system for filtering copyright is impossible on the fair use issue alone. Even if that issue was settled, then Google would have to run every image and video through a database of copyrighted works and they would have to know who has permission to use the works.
Th world 20 years from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The last few seconds pretty much sums up Ari's shortsightedness. A man from the audience is explaining that what happened to the music industry (how Apple saved the failing business model) and Ari agrees with that, then the man from audience asks if he doesn't see the writing on the wall, that this is going to happen to TV soon, within 20 years. Ari's answer is that he'll be fine with that, he'll be 71.
This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality. In the digital age it is folly to let these idiots lead the content industry. They're concerned about immediate profits, with no regard to what will happen in the near future.
People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything that is expected to last more than a mere 20 years. If you want your business to fail within 20 years, then Ari is your man. Ari is a death sentence to a company.
Zionist Hollywood (Score:1, Insightful)
Consequences of a fake tan (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point, should the amount of fake tan you apply disqualify your opinions from consideration?
Just a thought.
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two problems:
In short, any such technological measures are at best useless, and at worst can cause nearly unbounded harm.
Re:Topolsky (Score:5, Insightful)
In the video I watched, Emanual absolutely had a counter argument.
Topolsky said "they (Google) aren't policemen, they don't police things" and Emanual responded "no, they decide when they want to police something and when they don't want to". He went on to discuss how Google is actively filtering child pornography, but refuses to actively filter copyright infringement. Topolsky had no response to that other than to mutter "I don't know" and then go back to the road analogy and talk about tearing up the road. However, using his analogy, Emanual was not arguing that the road be torn up, just that since the road is already being policed for one bad thing, then it should also be policed for other bad things.
The argument that Topolsky should have brought was that, first of all, Google doesn't filter child pornography, so Emanual's premise is wrong. Secondly, child pornography is always illegal (at least in the U.S where this debate was occurring), so any instance of child pornography is, by definition, an instance of illegal child pornography, whereas an instance of downloaded content is not necessarily an instance of illegally downloaded content, so the filtering is different. Basically, the nature of the content in question is that it must be self-policed.
This web is magic! (Score:5, Insightful)
There exists a certain kind of person who will think that when you do something with computers, you are some kind of genius and a genius is almost a wizard if not a warlock or something. It might SOUND like awe but you can hear them linking it with witchcraft and selling your sole for a demonbuggering you.
Sometimes, praises ain't praises at all. Googlers are smart guys sounds a bit to much like Jews are really good with money, White people got all the jobs and Blacks sure got rhythm. Quick personality test, which of these made your blood boil? Mmm, interesting...
But where your grandmothers world views might be relatively harmless (where was she during the holocaust or lynchings etc etc) this guy uses it to put the blame for all his whoes on another group of people. Consider this: You can blame your high fuel prices on the oil companies, big money, Illuminati etc etc. This is straightforward blaming (and usually gets racist sooner or later). OR you can say, those motor company guys are smart guys and they can build a fuel efficient 3 ton SUV for you to drive alone... AND the unvoiced part here IS: but they ain't, so those guys must be in cohoots with the former guys who are controlling the entire world.
In short, this praise of googlers is NOT praise but saying really: They could fix it if they wanted to but they don't want to.
Pretty nice since this needly sidesteps the challenge of proving it can be done. Simply, they are smart, they can do it, if they wanted to and they must.
The problem this guy, Ari Emanuel faces is that he can't deal with the idea that world changes. Not just faster computers, bigger SUV's etc etc but that our culture, our idea of who we are, what we value, how we live, how we entertain ourselves, our morals, EVERYTHING changes over time. Copyright as it exists now, did NOT always exist in its current form. It was introduced quite recently and then it was introduced because tech (printing and music recording) were changing the world.
BUT that is just the shallow end of the changes made a hundred or so years ago. How many of you got an instrument you play with regulatory for your enjoyment? Wink wink, nudge nudge know what I mean
What I mean of course is that the sale of musical instruments has plummeted, once if you wanted to listen to music, you made it yourself. For hundreds, no thousands of years. Long before any copyright existed to "protect" music. In fact copyright was not introduced to protect musicians or even song writers but to protect music PUBLISHERS. Recorded music, first pianola, later wax cylinders etc changed all this. But it changed far more then just how music made its way around. How many in your youth went to a disco... okay, wrong place to ask BUT think about this, going to a disco or dance is basically the same thing but how normal do you find it have LIVE music playing? When there was no recorded music, far more people played to entertain others outside the home. Now only a few even play inside the home.
Recorded music has been killing MUSIC!
And yet, we SURVIVED!!! Society did NOT collapse. This was feared every time culture changed, the end of theater because of the movies, the end of the movies because of TV, the end of TV because of the VCR.
Culture survived! Might it also survive a new change? An era in which entertainment is once again produced differently? Think about cover bands. They are NOT a new thing but with recorded music, people for the first time had an idea of how the original sounded. Cover bands just USED to play popular music they heard in one place in another by just listening and changing it ever so slightly. That is how many a folklore story got changed and yet remained the same. (Yes, that too is part of mass media entertainment, just a different era). The idea that ONE company, one performer can now set how ALL other performers of a similar product are judged against the "original" is quite new. Quick, Snowwhite, the little mermain, picture them. If you can't help but see th
So nice to see validation... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always though that Hollywood executives were completely Idiotic Morons with an IQ around 85.
And this guy has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.
Please hollywood, keep hiring and showcasing complete idiots like this guy. It means you will not see the end coming and will stand there off guard and blindsided when the bitter end whips and smacks them in the face.
Re:Th world 20 years from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem with that whole industry. Their policies are based on shortsighted views and ancient mentality....People who have the mentality of "I don't care what happens 20 years from now" should not be in charge of anything...
It's a problem in a lot of industries. "Who cares what happens in 24 months? In 6 months, I'll have gotten more in bonuses than most people will see in their whole lives. If it ruins my company in 12 months, I have a golden parachute."
I want Spartakus (Score:4, Insightful)
Your solution here is Netflix.
When does Song of the South or Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea come to Netflix?
Re:im certain (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that his solution? He already *has* a solution, it's called piracy. He's invested in it, has the equipment and the skill to use that solution. Now you're suggesting he should scrap a working solution and replace it with.... a more expensive, partial solution that may cause extra inconvenience?
Netflix is at best an alternative that may or may not be around in a few years time, and could be ruined by a change of management. Piracy is not only a proven solution by now, it also has the advantage of staying power. If you've pirated a favourite DVD ten years ago, you will be able to watch it in ten years time with your kids. Can you honestly say that every movie that was in Netflix's catalog ten years ago will be available as-is in ten years time from them?
One thing people never discuss enough is that with piracy you get private ownership, just like when you buy some physical good in the store. Whereas the commercial digital world is all about renting everything and owning nothing. One day you have the right to watch or listen or read something, and the next the company is gone, or your credit card has expired, or your computer is b0rked, and *poof* it's all gone forever. It's highly unreasonable.
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I say until We, The People actually have a say at the bargaining table that ALL copyrights should frankly be ignored. The current laws were bought by treasonous bribery against the will of the people and like all laws brought about by bribes and backroom deals they should be treated as the illegal acts they are and promptly ignored.
Until we, the people, can frame our discussion and opinions in ways that don't make us sound like raving lunatics and utter morons, we, the people, will be ignored as lunatic morons. You can't garner support when people who actually agree that copyrights are out of hand think that you're off your rocker.
I'm just sayin'. When you throw around words like "treasonous" in casual conversation about copyright, you demonstrate an utterly extremist view that is easy to ignore.
Re:im certain (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason why copyright infringement isn't called theft, and it's because there's no stealing involved. And there's a reason why people don't think piracy is a serious crime, and it's because the private ownership is of a copy on their own bits and hard disks. The original remains the private property of the owner.
I wonder if you understand the mentality of an artist? The classic artist feels the need to create even if nobody appreciates his work. It's an internal need, not a kind of narcissism. There are plenty of famous artists who never saw a lot of money in their own hands, or were appreciated in their lifetime.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)