Director Attacks MPAA Piracy Claims 417
dipfan writes "Alex Cox, the writer/director of cult classic Repo Man and punk movie Sid And Nancy, writes today in The Guardian's media section that the movie industry's real pirates are the Hollywood studios and the MPAA - for squeezing out independents. He rejects the widespread claim that Spider-Man suffered from widespread net piracy, and asks: "Are [the MPAA's] claims of lost billions even credible?" (In a strange coincidence, Cox has another article in the same newspaper today, where he defends using 35mm film rather than digital cameras a la George Lucas, saying digital cinema gives too much power to the distributors and studios because the technology is less portable than 35mm.)"
digital video still young (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony admits piracy helped the PS1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, he gets that one pirated copy != one lost sale.
Still, I wouldn't expect Sony to allow copying anytime soon. Or even to rollback their laughingstock copy protection, for that matter. But it's nice to see somebody high profile talking sense once in a while.
Re:Vinyl trumps CDs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhow, records, as far as I know, can produce a far wider range of frequencies than the CD, who's 'inaudible' frequencies are lopped off the top and bottom end of a CD's audio data (i'm sure somebody else can provide the actual freq. range.)
So, if you're searching for the recording that most closely resembles the original recording (including frequencies your ear cannot detect), which some may contend is the sole purpose of a recording, leaving aside such issues as media size and portability, there is a grey area in which you could contend that the CD is the superior medium.
It's a tenuous claim, I'd say; if anything, most of the above mentionned technologies proved that media quality and experience alone doth not technological-adoption make. He's certainly correct in stating that the technical capabilities of a technology can easily take a second seat to factors such as product awareness, non technical factors (form factor, durability, copyability), and context (such as VHS winning over Beta due to Sony's attempt to keep pronographers from distributing content on Beta).
Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of Attack of the Clones, quality may not matter much since (a) almost all the shots are special effects shots done mainly by computer, and (b) the film is shite.
But try to imagine Citizen Kane shot on digital video (in colour, naturally), or Amelie, or Moulin Rouge. If its promoters are serious about the quality of their technology, let them put it to the test against the best work of contemporary and classic cinematographers - not against the worst.
My only regret is that we don't have the medical technology to give me a womb so that I can bear this man's children. I have never read such clear, plain spoken and informed articles about the MPAA agenda in a mainstream forum before. It makes me begin - begin - to hope that it's not too late to turn the tide of distributors controlling the very copyright laws that were originally and explicitely written to limit their ability to screw both creators and consumers. Alen Cox, I salute you.
Jack Valenti-Interesting Coincidence??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Roger Ebert's perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
MaxiVision48 can switch on the fly between 24 and 48 frames-per-sec and uses a new film advance mechanism to eliminate jitter. The result is a super clear rock-solid picture. I wonder what became of it.
Re:Vinyl trumps CDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a debated matter. Somes test indicate it does make a difference, some tests do not.
you know how your own voice sounds different than how your friends hear it. Same kinda deal
No, that has nothing to do with frequency response outside of hearing. Your voice occupies a pretty narrow band of frequencies. What it has to do with is that the sound generation unit (your vocal cords) is attached to your body. You hear a good deal of sound that resonates through your skull. Put your head on a speaker sometimes, it'll sound different than sitting in front of it.
Anyhow, records, as far as I know, can produce a far wider range of frequencies than the CD, who's 'inaudible' frequencies are lopped off the top and bottom end of a CD's audio data (i'm sure somebody else can provide the actual freq. range.)
Again, no. At the bottom end, CDs are far superior. They can produce frequences straight down to DC. At the high end records do have a theoritical higher end (they can theoritically go as high as the equipment allows) however as a parctical matter, even good turntables rarely outperform CDs. There are practical limits imposed by the turntable electronics.
So, if you're searching for the recording that most closely resembles the original recording (including frequencies your ear cannot detect
Fine, if that's your intrest, use Sony Direct Stream Digital. It is, by far, the most accurate represenation of sound to date. CD is not the be all, end all of digital, there are far better solutions out there. Oh, and SDSD fits on a small disc too.
The real issue with CDs orignally (all digital audio for that matter) had to do with the limitations of the analogue to digital and digital to analogue converters. They suffered from several problems that lead to a very harsh sound. Well times have changed a lot, and new converters have cleared all that up. They still aren't perfect, but they have cleared up the digital harshness and give a very smooth, natural sound.
A real life example: Dunlavy Audio Labs, makers of reference grade speakers, has a test they do. They record a string quartet to DAT (a digital tape with the same basic specs as CD) in an anechoic room. They then place the quarter in the centre, and flank them with their flagship SC-V speakers. They then have trained listeners come in and try to identify which is the real quartet and which is the reproduction. They cannot do so reliably.
This is not to say digital sound is perfect, SDSD has shown there is clear improvements ot be made over CD, and there are probably still improvements to be made over that, however CDs long ago eclipsed records in quality.
Obligatory ZX Spectrum reference (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, children these days, they don't remember the computer magazines of the 1980s that had computer games on free flexidiscs. This was a bit before CDs became popular.
Re:Not always true (Score:3, Interesting)
The studios can't very well release a badly-subtitled movie, or release in English-only first, followed by the subtitled version later.
Plus, before the internet, it didn't matter - the movies (and all of the hype) just followed a few months behind.
Living here for a few years, I really have little idea about what movies are playing in the US - when they finally show up at my video store is usually when hear of them - since I'm usually disappointed with the movies, I don't feel particularly deprived.
Of course, the big movies you do hear about - AOTC, LOTR, Spider-man, but they get pushed through the dubbing/titling process faster, so the lag time is less.
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
Wim Wenders said the same thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
The big lie. (Score:5, Interesting)
The truth: It isn't about piracy. It's about competition.
These giant companies have had a long run of huge profits because it is so expensive to make a movie or a record. Technology can change that.
Cheap high-quality digital recording equipment can eventually be made, and massive bandwidth will mean that those things that are recorded can be sent all over at very little cost. It can happen.
However, if this happens, the movie studios and record companies can lose out, because people might be willing to pay less for good indie things. It could end up like the open-source movement where eventually an entire industry of hobbyists starts making extremely high quality movies and songs. (Although it would also create al ot of crap...also like the OS movement.)
Therefore, they have to stop the introduction of high-quality recording and editing and distribution equipment (unless it's under their control).
Fortunately, The same equipment you can use to copy the content of the current regime is the equipment you will eventually be able to use to make cheap high-quality alternatives to the products the current companies.
That means they can attack their real enemy: "competition" by setting up a straw man: "piracy".
You might be wondering why they don't just go after the "competition" angle directly and state that they're scared of the possiblity of people making high-quality movies and distributing them without the blessing of the big studios. They're scared that there might be too many choices out there that are good enough that people aren't willing to give money to the mega companies anymore.
To understand this, you have to ask yourself a question:
If we eventully live in a world where it is possible for creative people to make and distribute high-quality movies and record cheaply, this technology (hinder/not affect/promote) the progress of the useful arts?
Pick one of those three. I say it will promote the arts. I admit, although the vast majority of things that get created will be crap, there will be more gems than there would be if the reation and distribution channels were still tightly controlled by the studios and record companies. So, I say
allowing technologies to come into existence that let people create and distribute high-quality art cheaply will promote the progress of the useful arts.
That may be an odd way to look at things, but it's actually the only way that counts. You see, there is no moral right of authors or companies to benefit from their works. Copyright only exists to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
That means taht you can't use copyright to hinder the progress of the useful arts.
Therefore, you can't use copyright to prevent new technologies that will promote the arts from coming into existence.
But, as I said before, fortunately for the big media companies, the technology that you could use to make illegal copies of their content is the same technology that could be used to promote the progess of the useful arts by giving cheap easy access to creation tools to more people.
So, that is the problem: The thing they fear is something that they can't attack directly. They cannot use copyright to hinder the progress of the arts. But, fortunately for them, they can attack the technology for being used to pirate their works and get the same effect without going against the Constitution and the only reason that copyright even exists.
So, please in your discussions of the various laws and **AA's don't mention piracy anymore and how these laws won't stop it. If you do that, you got suckered into believing THE BIG LIE and you're fighting on their turf.
Instead focus on the loss of creativity and expression that will occur if they don't allow the technology to exist. The key is to expose the big lie for what it is and repeat the truth enough times so that other people can see through the big lie.
PS: All they care about is money, so please stop going to the movies/renting/buying movies and CDs and tapes. If you're giving them your money, you're helping them.
"Pirate" Movie Screenings (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounded like an interesting idea that would have been fun to go to, but my friend couldn't make it. Still, it was an intriguing way out of the problem you're describing.