The 60 Minutes Kerfluffle
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 by Patrick RossOn Sunday night the venerable CBS news show “60 Minutes” did a segment on motion picture piracy. To those of us working actively in this space, it was pretty accurate but not new. It generalized a fair amount, but those of us with a journalism background understand this was a short segment targeting a general audience not familiar with BitTorrent or DVD-sniffing dogs. I was pleased it ran. But I was most amused by the reaction of a small but noisy online community to the report.
Driven by some cranky bloggers who are determined to deny any possible harm from copyright infringement, a few dozen folks found their way to the “60 Minutes” web site and posted complaints about the report. The complaints were by and large off base, reflected at times no evidence whatsoever that they had actually watched the report, and were frequently comical (like the auto industry, one wrote, we should just let all movies be made abroad).
I couldn’t help but notice that, first of all, no one noted that “60 Minutes” has posted a high-resolution, uninterrupted video of the segment just following broadcast, and has created an opportunity for people to comment on the segment. If that isn’t a media company embracing new technologies to benefit consumers, I don’t know what is.
I also noticed that the world the commenters were complaining about isn’t real, and wasn’t reflected in the segment.
Yes, Leslie Stahl only interviewed people from the motion picture industry, including acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh. Personally, I would have liked to have someone who objects to the copyrights held by motion picture producers. I would have liked to have seen someone try to defend the criminal piracy depicted in the segment. I would have liked to have seen someone try to argue that no financial harm is caused when millions of “consumers” consume a creative work without a penny going back to all of those involved in the creation of that work.
Perhaps they would have cited a poll of 1,008 people in the U.K. showing that Pirate Bay users claimed to have also spent a whopping 77 pounds Sterling on legitimate creative works. Naturally, they would have ignored the fact that massive infringers are by definition the largest “consumers” of creative works, and the better question would have been how much they might have spent had they not had the opportunity to massively infringe.
I also would have liked to have seen an actor who was not a household name. Ms. Stahl noted that “Wolverine” was a victim of pre-release piracy yet still made “a ton of money.” Mr. Soderbergh admitted that box-office receipts can create an impression that all is well, although he also noted that the big movie star “isn’t hurt” but other actors and crew are. Their residuals from DVD and other post-theater distribution services have declined as infringement has grown.
I also would have liked to have seen an independent film producer. They don’t get the theater play that “Wolverine” does, so a much greater percentage of their revenues come from DVD sales and from other licensed digital distribution services such as iTunes. If you can go grab an independent fiction or documentary film off of BitTorrent before it’s on iTunes or DVD, that has to undercut revenues.
Speaking of BitTorrent, the depiction in the segment was perfect. It explained in simple terms for a general audience how the technology works. Ms. Stahl noted it was “perfectly legal,” so those on the “60 Minutes” chat board saying they like BitTorrent because they use it to download Linux updates are simply making Ms. Stahl’s point. But it is also true, as the segment states, that creative works are infringed millions of times daily using torrents. To deny that is to deny that water contains oxygen and hydrogen.
The piece correctly noted the connection between commercial piracy and organized crime; there is solid evidence of that in a respected report prepared by RAND. It would be hard for someone to believe that “60 Minutes” made up the individual they showed being arrested for wholesale distribution of pirated videos, or to say the LAPD is making up the statistic they shared with Ms. Stahl that more than one million counterfeit DVDs are confiscated by LAPD annually. Raids of massive piracy operations in The Philippines and Malaysia, mentioned in the segment, are real and well documented.
I have two gripes with the piece. One, it doesn’t seem right to say that watermarking is something copyright owners want to keep “secret.” It’s true that a banner doesn’t run across the FBI warning stating that watermarking is used, but it’s been my impression that all creative industries want people to know when watermarking is used, so it acts as a deterrent. Better to prevent the infringement to begin with than chase after the infringer after the fact.
The other gripe I have is Ms. Stahl calling piracy a “sport” and Mr. Soderbergh agreeing. This is not a sport. Sports have rules, they are strongly enforced, and the very credibility of the game is called into question if the rules are not seen to be enforced fairly. (Heard the hubbub about wrong calls being made in the World Series?) Infringers, whether commercial or otherwise, do not follow the rule of law or any other rules for that matter. That’s the real problem.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“he also noted that the big movie star “isn’t hurt” but other actors and crew are. Their residuals from DVD and other post-theater distribution services have declined as infringement has grown.”
That’s not the fault of infringement - that’s how the film industry has chosen to structure itself. No matter how much you condemn so-called pirates, you can’t blame them for the fact that Hollywood’s revenues, which hit a record high this year, go disproportionately to the people at the top.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
If someone on our side would have made an argument against the egregious pursuit to stop imagined lost sales in the face of record theater attendance and profits it would be edited out of the segment because it make too much sense. Unchecked corporate greed is indefensible.
I too would have liked them to interview some indie film producers. They would find that they make huge sacrifices for their art with no expectations other than to make art. It would show the vast difference between true artists and the corporate capitalist maximalist hell bent on increased shareholder value over civil liberties.
I am surprised 60 Min mentioned the Wolverine leak that happened form the inside. It makes the case for strip searches (yes I exaggerate here) at the theaters and arresting camcording theater patrons redundant and ineffective.
I agree, piracy is not a sport, it is a futile game of cat and mouse that your lobby will never win.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I haven’t been to a movie or bought a new DVD or CD since 2005. I buy used.
Look at the failure of the war on drugs. This is the inevitable end of copyright we are seeing. Fair Use? What ever happened to Fair Use? Industry seeking to make the most money possible already gives us 90% garbage…and their DRM scams make using that content even more difficult and annoying.
Buy all the anti-citizen laws you want, you will lose. You can’t stop private persons getting together in their homes to trade content. You can push it off of the internet, but you’ll never ever stop it.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I’m a sorry folks but I’m a independent artist and actor and it does hurt the movie and music industry! The reason why those big name actors get the most of the money is because it’s their name on the line! When the movie is a great movie or bad movie who get’s credit and blame for it? The lead actor or actress!
And when studios cut back production that’s less opportunities for a up and coming actor as myself. Even as a indie movie producer I’ve been faced with people illegally downloading material that hurts our whole business. Look less money means less ablity to hire more people! You can say what you want to make yourself feel good about illegaly downloading material the fact remains money lost means no money to do more!
Tye Banks
November 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Nice post, Patrick. I agree with you that it would have been helpful to have someone on the piece arguing that the studios should simply stop doing copyright enforcement. I think the very airing of such an opinion would help copyright owners’ cause, as the vast majority of Americans understand that the business cannot, over the long term, survive if people obtain their movies without paying for them. A very vocal minority may claim that the studios should simply give up on enforcement and “come up with a new business model.” But most people, I think, understand that any business, from a small shop to a major movie studio, has the right to fight back when people take their most valuable products for free.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I would like to address some of the things that John Gordon, Nick and Fat Sean have asserted or questioned. I should start by telling you that I represent songwriters and license their music for use in films as well as other types of uses. Our company is a small independent and we represent some well known and not so well know songs. However, we also used to provide music supervision services for films. I am very familiar with what it takes to launch and release a movie and the literally thousands of people that work in their own big or small way to make it happen. It’s not just the studio and the big stars, it’s all the people associated with the writing, pre-production, filming, licensing of other creative works in the film, domestic distribution, marketing, theatrical venders, foreign distributors etc. This also includes all the people that assist this army of people who eke out only a modest living, support their kids and pay their taxes.
John Gordon writes “That’s not the fault of infringement - that’s how the film industry has chosen to structure itself.” Any actor will tell you that when they were starting their career and even in mid-stage of their career, their residuals were literally the thing that kept them alive, especially if they have a bad run at finding a new acting job. Whenever I hear someone dismiss all of the lesser known people who are effected by piracy, I realize that we as an industry do not talk enough about those people. We as a country are supported and respected around the world on the backs of thousands of creative and technical people through the creative industries, but those jobs are seriously in jeopardy every time someone decides they would like to steal a piece of copyrighted property just because they can.
Nick writes “They would find that they (indie film producers) make huge sacrifices for their art with no expectations other than to make art.” I have worked with more than my share of indie film producers and I can assure you that ALL of them hope to make money from their art. How could they survive as a film maker if they didn’t make any money? Further, a lot of those indie films get funded by producers of non-indie films and if those producers don’t make money from their larger commercial ventures….those indie films don’t get made. Maybe the reason the quality of film making is going down (as several have asserted) is that indie film producers can’t get the funding they need to produce their art and survive at the same time because piracy has made that dream impossible.
Fat Sean Says “Fair Use? What ever happened to Fair Use?”. I can assure you that Fair Use is in full use right now but what constitutes a fair use under US Copyright Law is not a distribution of any film that anyone wants to obtain for free via the Internet.
As an independent, I too have my share of frustration with the corporate side of the film industry. However, to say that because you don’t like these people or hate the films they are making that this somehow gives you the right to make your own free copy of their protected works is so far from being reasonable. We have copyright laws to protect those in the creative arts so that they can make a living from their art. The problem is people can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that stealing intellectual property is exactly the same as stealing physical property. Yes, there will always be shop lifters and thieves of every kind, but I wish the general public would be more aware of the damage that is being done by piracy to average hard working Americans like myself who just happen to use creativity as their skill to make a living.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Ben, I believe you’ve falsely limited the number of existing and relevant opinions. Of course, there are a wide variety of opinions regarding the measures that should be taken to stop copyright piracy. We can naturally expect major copyright holders to argue for their own best interest. However, there are other influential views on the issue which weight other interests differently; as an example, take William Patry (who you debated as a fellow copyright supporter with different beliefs about the most effective copyright laws). While we may once have believed “What’s good for GM is good for America”, I think we’ve seen that proven wrong. There are many stakeholders in these issues and their opinions should be taken into account and not presumed irrelevant.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
(After reviewing the original post, I would like to add the following):
You may be acknowledging the existing of other credible opinions while wishing that a straw-man copyright abolitionist had been on the show to be demolished, but I am hoping that is not the case and you would prefer the rational debate which is widely available.