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."
I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the "Googlers" are smart guys, doesn't that only show you'd have to be stupid to support the entertainment industry's view of how content should be bought, sold, and used?
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google doesn't block child pornography, Google tries to block child pornography. There's a big difference. They can block the terms typically used to search for child porn, but there's no way that Google could block it without actually looking at all the pictures and checking IDs.
And unfortunately, that would be a crime as there's no mens rea requirement attached to child porn charges.
Google should just BUY the entertainment industry (Score:5, Interesting)
...and give it marching orders. Use the entertainment industry to sell computers and to generate internet revenue.
"Give them the razor, sell them the blades" by buying out the razor factory.
Re:Both sides as bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably it isn't illegal to have the checksum values of child pornography. Couldn't the police issue these to Google, so that if their bots crawl illegal content, those sites can be removed from their search results. The URLs for those sites could then be passed back to the police.
This wouldn't be a "magic button" though. Content can easily be hidden.
Immature (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time, someone present it like this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Topolsky's analogy was good, and it really demonstrates how irrational Emanuel is. The analogy though would better fit ISPs and hosting providers.
I have a slightly better analogy which I welcome interviewers to keep in their pocket for the media industry representatives anytime they try to do the censor Google and similar song and dance. It has the advantage that you have the interviewee agree to the fact that you are right before the question is posed, or they clearly demonstrate that they are indeed insane.
First, I would like to know whether you agree to a few basic premises of my question.
1) Libraries should exist and should be able to house any content which is legal and that content should be available to examination by all patrons. To my knowledge, the only significant content under the illegal category is child pornography.
2) Libraries should be able to index the content they carry, whether by the Dewey decimal system or keyword or any other metric they so choose.
3) If someone uses the knowledge gained from a library to commit a crime, such as creating an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb from reading chemistry or explosive making books, the library has no responsibility. Only the person who committed the crime bears the guilt of such an act. Another example would be someone who learns how to pick locks from locksmithing books and uses the knowledge to rob jewelry stores he looked up in the Yellow pages.
Now comes the obvious question.
So then, how is an organization such as Google, responsible for providing the address of where a person can go to steal goods. Google does not house or transfer the goods. Google is little more than the Yellow Pages or a library index, they don't even carry the books, but you want to hold them responsible for the content of other people's computers? This would be like reading an autobiography from a drug trafficer which mentions that their gang used to hide drugs under an old brass bell at 49th and Broadway and blaming the library, or much less, their use Dewey Decimal system, which allowed some thugs to steal and sell the drugs hidden beneath.
Further, consider another example. Consider if someone used a transcode tool to make unencrypted copies of everything they watched on a Netflix account and then distributed that content. No one in the content industry would blame Netflix if they were using proper industry standard methods to copy protect their feed. This was never an issue that Blockbuster was responsible for VHS piracy during the 80's when some people would dub video cassette rentals. Radio stations and boombox makers were never the issue when people made mix tapes from Radio broadcasts.
Where exactly do you derive the right to publicly espouse a view clearly in contrast with society, the companies for whom you work, and even yourself? Nobody in any of those groups would say that libraries should have censored or monitored indices or banned books on the basis that they could be used for illegal purposes.
Frankly, I think Emanuel would probably begin cursing and yelling even more when faced with such reality, not to mention display an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance palpable to the audience.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like a pony while we're at it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even North Korea can't stop piracy [torrentfreak.com]. Because sharing content is the natural thing to do. Sharing is what turns content into culture. So what makes Hollywood bosses think they can stop it? Or more importantly, how far are they willing to go to stop it? Because even North Korea obviously doesn't go far enough.