A week and a half ago, Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton made some news for saying that nothing good had come from the internet, period. Plenty of online sites (including ours) took him to task for that, wondering how one gets to be the CEO of a major content company without understanding the internet. Today, Lynton hit back at critics -- not by saying he was quoted out of context or misunderstood, but by standing behind the statement and adding some gems to it as well.

Could it really be that the CEO of a major motion picture studio doesn't understand that people go to the movies for the experience, and not just the content?

I actually welcome the Sturm und Drang I've stirred, because it gives me an opportunity to make a larger point (one which I also made during that panel discussion, though it was not nearly as viral as the sentence above). And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet.

This is like saying "the major transportation companies and the most talented creators of transportation devices -- horse carriages, buggy whips, blacksmiths -- have all been seriously harmed by the automobile." Markets change. They may cause trouble for dinosaurs unable or unwilling to adapt, but they have not harmed content creation or the content business. And it's not "the internet" that has harmed the "most talented creators of that content." It's folks like Michael Lynton who seem to be funnelling them towards bad business models.

The only "safeguarding" you've suggested is your own obsolete business model. It's got nothing to do with culture and content creation. It has nothing to do with the internet. It has everything to do with the fact that you're viewing all content creation through the distorted prism of the movie making industry, where content creation comes from a big corporation and is then mass marketed and sold to the people. You need to step out from behind that prism, put down the red flags you're waving in front of automobiles, jump onto a passing car, and look at all the wonderful things the internet allows in terms of creativity and new business models. Don't let Sony Pictures be the Durant-Dort Carriage Company, clinging to the past.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090526/1159125014.shtml

First off that was a good read, thanks.

Second someone needs to fire Michael Lynton as he has no clue about anything.

Strange as it might seem I think he has a valid point on several fronts. Looking at his quote...

"And my point is this: the major content businesses of the world and the most talented creators of that content -- music, newspapers, movies and books -- have all been seriously harmed by the Internet."

There is no doubt they have been harmed. I don't download P2P movies but a good portion of the world does which cuts into revenues (I understand not everyone who does would pay for the content but some would). According to the article 4 million people downloaded one of the latest movies before or around its release. :)

I do however read several newspapers online and I'm sure the revenue they generate from my online visits don't equal what my subscription would be.

So I think it's undeniable they have been harmed and I didn't catch if he in fact said nothing good has ever come from the Internet. That I certainly wouldn't agree with. As an example sites like IMDB.com and others often tweak my interest in seeing movies that I would other wise never know about or pass over.

The argument of the car replacing the horse and buggy is only valid to a degree. Certainly it can create new opportunities and new ways of doing existing business but when you see 4 millions copies of a movie you just spent millions on to produce and market being downloaded it's hard not to think it's not a new world rather just a place to harm those mentioned above by stealing their content and money.

More info on his original quote:

Mathew Ingram points out that at a recent panel discussion the CEO of Sony Pictures, Michael Lynton, said: "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the internet. Period."

Perhaps that explains why you're failing to figure out how to embrace it?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1301064900.shtml


He has valid points on the concerns of piracy, but he is letting his own rhetoric get in the way of that point. Even worse, it seems like he believes the potential of piracy is so bad that he cannot even begin to imagine a possibility of the internet providing a richer model then the current physical disc model. Keep in mind that studios also lamented DVD for having it's encryption broken easily (and the ease of which physical copies could be had/made).... of course with the accompanying crying to lawamakers, the press and their mommies. That does not change that DVD was and is a major boon to the film industry primarily because it offered value, convenience and quality. I know it is sometimes hard for executives to realize that people are willing to pay for the trifecta of value, convenience and quality.

Very similar story here where studios are both moving their content to be available via streaming/download while lamenting how sad they are that a movie that was pirated before release still earns massive dough at the box office (despite less than stellar reviews).

While one can sympathize with studios over the threat of piracy, it's part of our everyday world. To simply ignore or bemoan it is not an adequate response.

The digital distribution threshold is here. It promises to be as revolutionary as VHS first was. If Lynton doesn't understand that, it puts Sony at a huge disadvantage. This change is going to be a challenge to studios. The ones that figure it out will succeed. The ones that can't, or chose not to, will suffer.

The difference in this revolution are the pirates, and those who think that all digital content is (or should be) free. The notion is ridiculous, but prevalent. It will also keep pricing in check.

The studios can wait or postpone their plans for as long as they want, but the public won't wait. If they want to avoid the fate of the record studios, they should be getting out on the forefront and trying to shape their own future. Lynton doesn't seem to want any part of that. Were will that leave Sony?

Scott

Michael is obviously missing the good ole' days of studios controlling everything. Top to bottom. Content and Distribution.

Thank Al for the internetS.

Michael is obviously missing the good ole' days of studios controlling everything. Top to bottom. Content and Distribution.

Thank Al for the internetS.

Ya...it's not like they created, financed, promoted or took the risk in producing the product.
Since all they did was collect the money I have no sympathy for their plight.

I imagine if someone intercepted your paycheck and took half or all for their own use you might be a tad p***ed.
I guess you could adapt by "working off the books" and make half of what you earn now...sound good to you?

Movie theaters were threatened by TV. TV broadcast was threatened by cable, which was threatened by satellite. All were threatened by the VCR and then DVD's and now by the Internet.

No established distribution monopoly likes to lose control and have to compete with new players made possible by new technology. They always fight it. Some adapt.

Some don't.

- Tom

Movie theaters were threatened by TV. TV broadcast was threatened by cable, which was threatened by satellite. All were threatened by the VCR and then DVD's and now by the Internet.

No established distribution monopoly likes to lose control and have to compete with new players made possible by new technology. They always fight it. Some adapt.

Some don't.

- Tom

The difference being...in none of the above circumstances did someone steal your product and have the potential to distribute it for free to many with such ease. The problem is compounded by the fact that it wouldn't matter if the content was priced at $1...some people want/expect it for free.

There are many ways to get content w/o buying physical product. So saying people can't access content does not fly. The problem is the the outright theft of property which the internet has allowed.

I know it's popular to want to "stick it to the man" for imagined damages but there are shareholders who might not be so happy to see earnings reduced. Who knows you or someone you know might be a shareholder directly or indirectly.

Ya...it's not like they created, financed, promoted or took the risk in producing the product.
Since all they did was collect the money I have no sympathy for their plight.

I imagine if someone intercepted your paycheck and took half or all for their own use you might be a tad p***ed.
I guess you could adapt by "working off the books" and make half of what you earn now...sound good to you?

If they have the power they will take the internetS from you because they view all of their paying costumers common thieves. Among other things.

The lawyers are having a filed day. BTW can someone tell me why suing you costumers makes business sense?

If they have the power they will take the internetS from you because they view all of their paying costumers common thieves. Among other things.

The lawyers are having a filed day. BTW can someone tell me why suing you costumers makes business sense?Well for starters over 4 million for a recent movie are... The suing is easy to understand. Hopefully it allows them to keep a few customers. Since the ones currently downloading aren't customers (in most cases) it just might give pause to their actual customers taking up the practice.

From my casual understanding of the situation the studios are only attempting to close the P2P networks (seeding services?) and not suing individual downloaders.

The lawyers are having a filed day. BTW can someone tell me why suing you costumers makes business sense?
They are not customers once they frequenty start to steal merchandice and also distribute it from their PC to the internet for anyone to download.

If they have the power they will take the internetS from you because they view all of their paying costumers common thieves. Among other things.

The lawyers are having a filed day. BTW can someone tell me why suing you costumers makes business sense?
I believe a customer is defined as someone who purchases a product.

If you do not purchase something and instead take it (w/ whatever justification you happen to use) then it is theft and this type of content theft is common.

Could you justify theft of your property by someone else? Would you persue the matter with the police? Do you believe people who use the internet for criminal purposes should be left to do whatever they please? Do you mind paying more for someone else to get a non-essential item for free?

Agreed. Pirates are just the modern day shoplifters or people who sneak into movie theaters (you wouldn't consider either of them "customers" and not prosecute them).

It's just with the internet, the "product" is easier to steal and it's harder to be caught.