AVS Forum banner

List Of False Studio Claims Over The Years

11K views 304 replies 42 participants last post by  thehun 
#1 ·
Not sure if this is the proper forum for this thread, but has anyone ever compiled a concise list of the absurdly false claims the big studios have claimed over the years to show the MPAA pattern of behavior?


Here are a couple:

1. Jack Valenti-"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

2. RIAA-"Home Taping is Killing Music" - Analog tape recorders.

3. RIAA-Jason Berman "DAT poses the most significant technological threat the American music industry has ever faced."

4. RIAA-Hilary Rosen-"Diamond's product Rio was destined to undermine the creation of a legitimate digital distribution marketplace" MP3 players


What about DVR's, HDTV, Analog Sunsets, Encrypting Basic Cable Tiers, Selectable Output Controls, blah-blah-blah.


Feel free to add others you are aware of.....I am sure there is much, much more out there you guys remember hearing coming out of the studios. Have fun with this thread assuming it doesnt get locked/deleted.


Maybe we could author a short paper compiling the lies the studios have foisted upon their politicians and send a copy to each of the members who will vote on the latest abomination called SOPA?


Note: 1-4 lifted from "100 years of Big Content fearing technology—in its own words"
 
See less See more
#203 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad /forum/post/21531587


I am a copyright holder. I know other copyright holders that feel the same way. One publishes books and states on his radio show he wouldn't even mind if the copyright was only good for three years. You can find his books at bookstores too, he's not some small potato. Times change and distribution methods change. In a world with a population of 7 billion plus copyrights become a race to get a rice bowl.

Selections from the Legislative Action page of the Songwriters of America Guild site:


SGA Lauds Senators' Move to Protect IP and Songwriters


WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), today, announced their support of, and gratitude for, the hard work of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Chuck Grassley in their recent introduction of the PROTECT IP Act.


Songwriters Thankful: Obama And DOJ Putting Pirates and IP Thieves On Notice


WASHINGTON -- Just days after the Nation celebrated Thanksgiving, Attorney General Eric Holder, along with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement team (ICE), have given songwriters and other first-order creators a reason to give thanks as well.


Songwriters and Authors Unite to Protect Termination Rights


WASHINGTON -- The Authors Guild and The Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) told the U.S. Copyright Office on Friday that there is an urgent need to eliminate a potential gap in termination rights granted under the Copyright Act. The joint filing, announced by Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken and SGA president Rick Carnes, was in response to a request for comments by the Office on the issue. The gap, if not addressed, might prevent as many as 100,000 creators from being able to exercise termination rights they - and Members of Congress - thought had effectively been granted to them under the law.


SGA Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Proposal Could Enshrine Music Piracy and

Devastate Creators


WASHINGTON -- Warning of potential devastation to music creators, the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) Thursday filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing its grave concern about a new proposed rule that could result in continued widespread music piracy and further loss of income to songwriters.


SGA Testifies before NYC Council against Support for Net Neutrality Rules


NEW YORK-- Two top American songwriters joined the President of the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) in testifying recently before the New York City Council against a resolution that would express support for the concept of Net Neutrality without addressing the issue of rampant Internet music piracy. Songwriters Gordon Chambers (I Apologize, If You Love Me) and Phil Galdston (Save the Best For Last, Fly) joined SGA President Rick Carnes (Can't Even Get the Blues No More, Long Neck Bottle) to urge the Council's Committee on Technology in Government to refrain from backing Net Neutrality rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that would restrain Internet service providers from fighting illegal file sharing on their networks.

http://www.songwritersguild.com/sand...gislative.html


Is the SWG not representative? I'm not seeing much "give" on IP rights there.
 
#204 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad /forum/post/21531622


There are many tales of artists being burned by shady record execs and why an increasing number of artists are self publishing.

There are always 'tales' of this sort. And, if you know about the history of the business, you'll know that the biggest abusers were the small indie labels back at the start of the modern popular music business, not the music business of today. Back then, those guys really ripped off artists. They were investing their own money and struggling to survive and they did whatever it took, payola as well of course.


In the modern era, you sign a contract. If you aren't competent to understand the contract you should get a lawyer to do it for you. Actually you should that anyway, and your management should be making you do that. If you don't like the contract terms, don't sign it. How many of the 'tales' out there are from people who just signed what was put in front of them without even bothering to read it, and then later complained that they got ripped of? And how much of it is based on the level of investment economics that generally exist out there (as evidenced by these types of threads), where people can't comprehend that someone giving you a lot of money to make your dream come true isn't a gift, and the folks who give you the money WILL get theirs first, always?


Not that some people in any business don't get ripped off. It always happens, and the labels get ripped off as well, though no one ever seems to think that matters. But still, pretty much anyone who gets a chance to sign with a major label does so. If they go into it with their eyes open and understand that they are in a *business to business deal*, then it's their best chance of making it. And if they do make it they can profit very handsomely.


As I said before, though I'm not a scholar of the history of popular music, I've watched about every documentary made of any substance at this point. Far and away the biggest danger that artists have is their own management. Their management is always in a better position to rip them off than their label. The number of them that I've seen who had legitimate issues (with legitimate labels, not shady fly by night operations) are fairly small.


Tom Petty is one of the most visible ones that I know of, but his issue isn't what most people probably think it is. He was on a small label and part of his contract with the smaller label stipulated that if the label was sold that Tom's band could walk away from the contract. It wasn't that he was getting ripped off, it was that he wanted to walk away and the label that bought the smaller label was trying to muscle him into staying. In the process of that lawsuit, they went over the contract carefully and found something that wasn't strictly legal and that was also put forward in the case. But it was never a case of him being ripped off.


Another well known example, which is pretty counter to your view, is that of Atlantic Records. In the early days, when they were a small Indie label (closer to the artists), they ripped off those artists pretty profusely, as all those indies did back then. They later publically appologized and made funds available to give back some of the royalties owed. Later, when they were purchased and became part of a major label, the biggest acts out there flocked to sign with them, and all of them speak very well of Atlantic in that era, though it was clearly a big business deal by then. Of course Ahmet was a big part of the draw, but none of them complain about being ripped off.
 
#207 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0mi /forum/post/21532729


Copyright holders want copyright extensions to last forever, and be protected more strongly than before. Shocking.

This is what makes this whole thing just so painful. You can argue for pages to get some facts straight, and then it just starts all over again. Copyright owners have almost zero protection right now, so how could they POSSIBLY be wanting more than ever before? They want the protections that they are guaranteed by law, but are not receiving (and before you say so, not by laws they paid for, but laid down in the Constitution of this country.)


And copyright lengths are not remotely 'forever'. Their current lengths are quite reasonable.
 
#208 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey /forum/post/21533204


And copyright lengths are not remotely 'forever'. Their current lengths are quite reasonable.

Their lengths are every bit as reasonable as Mickey Mouse says they are, and they always will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._Extension_Act


I doubt very much the framers of the Constitution ever intended Mickey to have perpetual rights forever, but effectively, with continued lobbying ($=power on The Hill), he will. Protecting the mouse's trademarks and copyrights forever does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, which was what James Madison and the Continental Congress had in mind (they did specify that such exclusive rights be "for limited times"). It just makes bullies of some copyright holders like Disney, especially when the big ones can toss money at Congress and bend its will to their own.


*******************************************

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Art. I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.
 
#209 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by h0mi /forum/post/21532729


Copyright holders want copyright extensions to last forever, and be protected more strongly than before. Shocking.

Most of what is being stolen is protected by the original copyright laws that were in place from the very beginning. Shocking.
 
#210 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 /forum/post/21534187


Protecting the mouse's trademarks and copyrights forever does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, which was what James Madison and the Continental Congress had in mind (they did specify that such exclusive rights be "for limited times"). It just makes bullies of some copyright holders like Disney, especially when the big ones can toss money at Congress and bend its will to their own.

But the thing is, no one is complaining about it because it doesn't promote the progress of science or the useful arts. They are complaining about it because Mickey Mouse is one of the pillars of the argument that copyright owners are evil and own the Congress. What exact science or useful art is Mickey part of? None really. it's commerce, and that's part of why copyright has changed. It's not emotionally disturbed virgins in the 1800's writing beautiful verses, it's business with millions of dollars being invested in it.


The only reason Mickey is worth anything today is that Disney has continued to pour millions into maintaining him as a visible icon. And the only people whose lives will change if he comes out of copyright are people who want to make money from it, though they did nothing to make Mickey a valuable commodity.


No one else's life is going to change. I bet the number of downloads of Mickey Mouse movies is an infinitesimal fraction of Justin Bieber's songs. And you can watch any of them you want for a small rental fee, right? I just checked Netflix and there appears to be a good 15 pages of Disney movies that I could watch for my monthly fee.


This is not an argument for infinite copyright, but copyright isn't infinite and it's not going to be. The current lengths are reasonable for a world where it's being applied to commerce that people are making significant investments in. If someone is really actually creating science or useful art, and they want to put their work into the public domain, they can do so at any time. Nothing is stopping them.
 
#213 ·
I only read the first two pages(out of 6 on my avs app) so I dont knkw if these points have been mentioned or not but after reading all Deans brainwashed opinions and propaganda hes speaking I couldnt read any further, I had to stop and say somethimg.(like he said, he gets allot of his info from the insiders who are use to making 50 million and now their making 30 million, Id be pissed to
,of course theyre going to give him evidence suppporting theyre side. I think hes either closed minded and or not open to any new ideas or other ways of looking at it besides: its all theft, its all wrong, every site that allows any free downloads of CR stuff is bad etc., wich just isnt true. Il finish catching up after I say this-


These owners and ceos of the mpaa mafai etc. are billonaries and the artits are millonaires. They have been getting rich off ripping us off for ever. We pay for over priced tickets to movies, buy over priced blurays, cds, cable, subscriptions, vod, etc, wich all cost cents on the dollar to produce, and they are all extremely over paid. They dont think twice about stealing are hard earned money when they could live a lavish lifestyle for half the money they take from us. Im so sorry if these theives are going to make 200 billion this year instead of 400 billion. Maybe if they were more fair with their prices people wouldnt be so quick to stick it to them. SWIM has always bought his own music and movies up until this last year, but SWIM is a student and is making very little. As far as music cds go, I havnt bought (or downloaded) in probably 15 years, until recently. I just couldnt afford it and I never owned a pc. In my case and im sure many, many others, the industry isnt losing any money over people like me who wouldnt be buying the cds anyway. Because its there and free is the only reason theyre aquiring it. Otherwise they would go without.


Also once people buy these dvds, for example, they should be allowed to do whatever they please with them. I do believe going into a theatre, filming a movie and then uploading it and distributing is wrong, but people spreading stuff they own should be fine.


It musy be nice to be so rich like the.ceo of mpaa you can buy a law. Lets see, were just going to buy, I mean hire, lobbyists to bribe, whoops I mean contribute, senators, congressman etc. to write a bill stating whatver it is we want them to say. Because we are going to "contribute" to their cause. All because they arent finacially rapeing us as good as before. They arent losing money they just arent making as much. Man, its gotta be hard to get by on what those guys get by on. That makes me sick.


Besides all that, the big issue is if these bills become laws, they are going to screw up alot of legit sites. If they are or arent it wont matter, theyll get shut down until found guilty or not guilty and then maybe get turned on if their able to still aford to. Even more scary is these bills are just the foothole the gov needs to get its claws in the intenet. Parts of These Bills can be open to their interpetation and ammendments added easy. If these pass it will be easier for new ones to get introduced. The internet is the last real place for free speech. Its like the Alaska of the states.
 
#215 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 /forum/post/0


Who the hell are you to say that anyone is overpaid? Especially for something as nonessential as a music CD or movie. Just another self-entitled punk trying to justify thievery over the internet.

Name calling, oooh, nice retort. Just another old uneducated, closed minded old man who is only looking at this wrong way. As far as them being paid, you made my point exactly. Its non essential, jobs and and making of products that are more essential to life and are well being that should be paid more. Habe you even read about SOPA or PIPA? Its goimg to ruin the internet. If I was against piracy I would not think these were good bills. Its going to cause more money and job loss than piracy.
 
#217 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21535892


Name calling, oooh, nice retort. Just another old uneducated, closed minded old man who is only looking at this wrong way. As far as them being paid, you made my point exactly. Its non essential, jobs and and making of products that are more essential to life and are well being that should be paid more. Habe you even read about SOPA or PIPA? Its goimg to ruin the internet. If I was against piracy I would not think these were good bills. Its going to cause more money and job loss than piracy.

Hitting on every exhausted cliche to justify your theft. You're more pathetic than I previously thought. Thank God this forum has an ignore feature.
 
#219 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 /forum/post/0



Hitting on every exhausted cliche to justify your theft. You're more pathetic than I previously thought. Thank God this forum has an ignore feature.

These are my opinions wich came from me and I could say the exact same for you about cliches. The only reason their cliches I assume is because the majority of peoole think like I do, It is not theft.


I bet the majority of people against online piracy wouldnt turn down a copy of a bluray of their favorite movie given to them by a stranger on the street.
 
#220 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21536087


I bet the majority of people against online piracy wouldnt turn down a copy of a bluray of their favorite movie given to them by a stranger on the street.


Ladies and gentlemen on my left hand an apple and on my right hand an orange...


If "stranger" decides to make a *cough* backup copy and give it not only to you but your entire neighborhood as well is that still ok with you? Said movie has been bought once but ends up in 50 houses, what do you call it then?


I'm not a SOPA/PIPA suppporter either, but please a little honesty, that can't hurt sometimes.
 
#221 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21535828


Also once people buy these dvds, for example, they should be allowed to do whatever they please with them. I do believe going into a theatre, filming a movie and then uploading it and distributing is wrong, but people spreading stuff they own should be fine.

They don't "own" the movie on the DVD, though. They own the license to view the material on the DVD for themselves. That's what every IP property you "buy" is about. When you buy a book, you buy the license to view the book as much as you want. You don't buy the right to photocopy that book and send it around to everyone. Same with music and movies. "Spreading stuff around" violates that license, because the owner of the DVD does not own the copyright (the right to copy.)


Ripping a CD for use in your mp3 player is classed as an "unauthorized" copy by the strictest definition of the law (you didn't contact the studio to get permission) but the music studios aren't going to go after you because 1) they know it's unenforceable and ludicrous that anyone would get permission for it, 2) they would never find out anyway, and 3) they're going after the dudes who post it on the web for anyone to download.
 
#222 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 /forum/post/0



You should really give
a watch. It's featured in full on Vimeo for free, I really think you'd like it actually.


...


You can retract this one if you want, I'll leave it alone either way though.


Not quite, you might be more accurate in saying "how the music industry works", but the "music world" has indeed changed, and dramatically so.


Haha, truly delusional you are. I posted links to a variety of websites with a variety of viewpoints and affiliations... just none of them are your beloved MPAA or RIAA.


Everyone who thinks like you that is, which thankfully are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Because most other people understand a few things:


A) People who pirate everything with no intention of ever being a legitimate consumer are indeed thieves and should be treated as such. I have tried to make the distinction before, but you insist on lumping everyone who pirates in together as entitled thieves. Obviously, that is foolish nonsense.

B) These people's actions are the minority and do not harm sales any more than the accepted losses of retail stores hurt sales. You could argue that because piracy makes it easier to "steal" in this manner then more sales are being lost, but that is a fallacious argument. For one, there is no reason to believe that these people would be purchasing their pirated content if piracy was harder to do. For two, the product is still widely available for purchase to everyone else (unlike if it was physically stolen from a retail store).

C) The majority of people who pirate do so as a "try before you buy" service, and end up legitimately purchasing the media they want to own. This is where I would agree that the rental industry has suffered at the hands of piracy, but then again streaming and subscriptions services have had a hand in it's demise as well. In reality, it's just another relic of a pre-digital era.

D) Just because someone downloads something, does not mean that person would've ever purchased it. This is something you have a hard time grasping, and I can understand why to an extent because on the surface it seems that 1+1=2. If a person took the time to download something, then obviously they did so because they had a significant interest in it, right? Clearly that is a lost sale due to piracy, ya? The reality is content is downloaded and consumed in mass proportions irrespective of the downloader's regular purchasing preferences. To put it in terms you may be able to comprehend, I've listened to thousands of songs on Youtube/Soundcloud that I would never, ever purchase. Ever. Should each of those artists also make the asinine claim that they lost my sale?

D) Piracy encourages sharing and communal discovery of new media and content more so than any other concept or distribution method in existence. Except maybe Youtube? Probably not even Youtube, actually. Either way, this point goes back to a post I made earlier which is that piracy -- at its highest level -- is about sharing and discovery, not theft. Going to back to my example at the end of C) above, I -- along with millions of others -- have also discovered things solely because of Youtube that I have ended up purchasing. Those sales would never have been possible in the pre-digital and information sharing era.

E) Many losses attributed to piracy have nothing to do with piracy. Whether it is the inevitable decrease in physical media sales that would've taken place whether piracy had ever existed or not, the rise of alternative delivery methods as a result of the evolving market, or the obvious and evidenced fact that the media industry dragged its heels in the mud and tried to cling to its outdated business model (again) rather than adopting new technology and keeping up with the shift in global consumerism... there are many, many reasons why overall sales are down compared to the mid-to-late 90s. You can cry and point your finger exclusively at piracy all you want, clearly, but it doesn't change reality.


There are more points I could make, but I can't believe I let myself get dragged back into this already. It is a useless endeavor, as you will no doubt re-contextualize and misinterpret my words into another mind-numbing retort that will force me to respond in turn (I can't wait to see how you butcher A-E above, should be highly entertaining). Suffice to say, it's not some "twisted belief system" that is indicating that piracy does indeed help sales. It is simply the reality outside of the MPAA\\RIAA-endorsed bubble you insist on dwelling in. Do the people in my point A above help sales? No, of course not, as I explained. But I've never made that argument, you have just been arguing with me like I have. You like to claim I live in my own bubble of self-justification and warped rationale that enables me to believe what I do, and that is cute and all, but that is exactly what I'd expect someone so misinformed, closed-minded, and out-of-touch with the evolved world around him to say.

Right on. Good sfuff. Your letter "D" point above applies to me. Everything I checkout or download, wether I like it or not, Im not going to buy. I havnt paid for music in almost 20 years. In that 20 years, until this year, I havnt downloaded either. I either listened to music I already owned, radio, cable music channels, mtv or the like, or the main one, wich is pandora/grooveshark or the likes. Im sure if there has been any decrease in sales its more likely come from all of these services rather than piracy.


I also believe all of this downloading has been able to spread music to more people than by people just buying it. Its a form of advertising. Im sure the majority of people who download various ways also still purchase and im sure some of those decisions are based off of the material theyve downloaded.
 
#223 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo /forum/post/0




Ladies and gentlemen on my left hand an apple and on my right hand an orange...


If "stranger" decides to make a *cough* backup copy and give it not only to you but your entire neighborhood as well is that still ok with you? Said movie has been bought once but ends up in 50 houses, what do you call it then?


I'm not a SOPA/PIPA suppporter either, but please a little honesty, that can't hurt sometimes.

"A little honesty", what r u talking about? Im not sure what issue you are adressing? As far as it being 1 person or 50, the point is the same.


Edit: Oh, I was trying to figure out what you were refering to about being honest and if you are asking me to be honest answering your question. If it is about, if handing out 50 dvds is ok with me, my honest answer is this: its none of my business what he does and he can do with them as he wishes.
 
#224 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/0



They don't "own" the movie on the DVD, though. They own the license to view the material on the DVD for themselves. That's what every IP property you "buy" is about. When you buy a book, you buy the license to view the book as much as you want. You don't buy the right to photocopy that book and send it around to everyone. Same with music and movies. "Spreading stuff around" violates that license, because the owner of the DVD does not own the copyright (the right to copy.)


Ripping a CD for use in your mp3 player is classed as an "unauthorized" copy by the strictest definition of the law (you didn't contact the studio to get permission) but the music studios aren't going to go after you because 1) they know it's unenforceable and ludicrous that anyone would get permission for it, 2) they would never find out anyway, and 3) they're going after the dudes who post it on the web for anyone to download.

I know all of this, I should.have been more specific in my wording. All of the copyright/licensing stuff is a real touchy gray area that not everybody agrees on exactly what is legal and what is illegal. As far as even being able to copy it to yohr own hard drive, Isnt the deal, technically your suppose to have the disc in the device like with kaliediscope.
 
#225 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21536249


"A little honesty", what r u talking about? Im not sure what issue you are adressing? As far as it being 1 person or 50, the point is the same.


Edit: Oh, I was trying to figure out what you were refering to about being honest and if you are asking me to be honest answering your question. If it is about, if handing out 50 dvds is ok with me, my honest answer is this: its none of my business what he does and he can do with them as he wishes.

See Tulpa's post above. One copy they don't care. millions of people having access to it for free they do. That was what I was referring too about 'being honest'. So no, 1 person or 50 the point is not the same.
 
#226 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo /forum/post/0



See Tulpa's post above. One copy they don't care. millions of people having access to it for free they do. That was what I was referring too about 'being honest'. So no, 1 person or 50 the point is not the same.

Actually it is the same. Its my point.. I was thinking of a person being against torrenting, you would either aquire a movie from a stranger you didnt know and not be ok with it or have one given to you on the street and except it. The scenario involves one movie either way. Also if it is illegal to do it with one movie or a millon it shouldnt matter the amount.
 
#227 ·
Others have already pointed out how completely selfish and greedy and misguided your posts are so I won't bother repeating all that. Everything you've said is right out of the downloader's book of rationalizations. The music industry is composed solely of evil billionaries are who the only ones who are hurt by downloading, if you can't afford something then you should be able to steal it, the only people stealing are people who can't afford it, etc...


And, no, the poeple I talk to are NOT billionaries, they are the people in the trenches and they are the ones being hurt.


I imagine we are going to see a lot of these types of reactions as people who have spent all these years gleefully pissing on the movie and music industries and thinking that they were invincible now have to deal with the FBI. A lot of folks who have grown to assume it's some kind of right are now probably going to start get awfully angry when they have basic morality forced back on them by law.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top