Category Archives: Entertainment

Dodd to head MPAA

Posted on by

Despite an explicit pledge to not become a lobbyist, former U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd [Wikipedia backgrounder] announced today that he will head the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA):

“I am truly excited about representing the interests of one of the most creative and productive industries in America, not only in Washington but around the world,” said Senator Dodd. “The major motion picture studios consistently produce and distribute the most sought after and enjoyable entertainment on earth. Protecting this great American export will be my highest priority.”

“In several important ways, taking this step represents a continuation of my work in the Senate, from advancing the interests of children and families and creating and safeguarding American jobs to the protection of intellectual property and the expansion of international trade,” said Senator Dodd. [emphasis added]

A lot of outlets are covering this story, including tech outlets (like Wired) and political papers (like The Hill).  However, I was particularly intrigued by the juxtaposition of coverage in The Atlantic and The Hollywood Reporter.  The Atlantic wondered exactly how Dodd was qualified for this new job:

It’s a little bit hard to understand how Dodd’s connections throughout Connecticut, Washington, and the banking industry will prepare him for his new role, but perhaps the entertainment industry knows a different Dodd than us financial reporters.

The Hollywood Reporter suggests at least part of the answer:

While Dodd does not have a lot of experience in Hollywood, he is known to have many friends in show business, and has supported the MPAA on key trade, piracy and other issues. He was also author of banking law last year that included a section sought by the MPAA and others to stop plans for a futures market in movies.

I would add Dodd is qualified to head the MPAA because he can deliver what everyone wants when they hire a lobbyist:  something from the government.  Frankly, the content of Dodd’s work during his years in the Senate doesn’t matter; his contacts do.

I guess it was too much to expect “[t]hat Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington’s ‘revolving door'”.  Looks like he’s going to be able to break out his “thick Rolodex” after all.

Update 3/2/2011: TechDirt picked up the story this morning.

The spin-to-truth ratio is rising

Posted on by

Mike Masnick over at TechDirt pointed me over to a “study” put out by Rick Falkvinge, a member of the Pirate Party, who claims that

for every job lost (or killed) in the copyright industry due to nonenforcement of copyright, 11.8 jobs are created in electronics wholesale, electronics manufacturing, IT, or telecom industries — or even the copyright-inhibited part of the creative industries.

Masnick has at least as many problems with Falkvinge’s methodology as I do, but the content industry plays this game too.  See this example of similarly muddled reasoning over at The Copyright Alliance Blog, which attempts to connect almost 14 million illegal downloads with the 2,000 production jobs in L.A.  Are readers really supposed to think that Hollywood blockbusters are imperiled?  If so, the Alliance Blog probably shouldn’t have picked as its example a movie that’s made over $800 million worldwide.  (At the box office alone.)

I think Masnick’s analysis is spot-on:

I don’t think anyone actually believes [Falkvinge’s] numbers are accurate. But it’s using the same basic methodology, assumptions and thought processes behind the studies in the other direction. You can also, obviously, claim that Falkvinge is biased. He is. But is he more biased than the entertainment industry legacy players who do the other studies? It seems clear that the industries are likely to be more biased, since they have billions of dollars bet on keeping the old structures in place. I think both studies are probably far from accurate in all sorts of ways, but if you’re going to cite the entertainment industry’s claims based on this kind of methodology, it seems you should also have to accept these claims. [emphasis added]

Numbers can be powerful weapons.  But it helps if they actually mean something and aren’t simply empty rhetorical flourishes.

Winklevoss twins continue lawsuit against Facebook

Posted on by

The key conflict in The Social Network (reviewed here and here) is the lawsuit that the Winklevoss twins bring against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. This lawsuit is continuing as the Winklevosses seek a larger settlement:

If they prevail, their legal appeal would overturn the settlement, now worth in excess of $160 million because of the soaring value of the privately held company.

The Winklevosses won’t say exactly how much they would seek in their high-stakes grudge fest with the billionaire Facebook founder, but by their own calculations they argue they should have received four times the number of Facebook shares. That would make any new settlement worth more than $600 million based on a recent valuation of Facebook at more than $50 billion…

Facebook has won multiple court rulings, and legal experts say the Winklevosses are likely to lose this one too…

The controversial origins of Facebook — who actually founded it and how — have been the subject of renewed debate since Hollywood offered its dramatization of the conflicting stories from the Winklevosses, both portrayed in “The Social Network” by actor Armie Hammer, and former Zuckerberg friend and Harvard classmate Eduardo Saverin, portrayed by Andrew Garfield. In 2005, Saverin sued Facebook for diluting his stake in the company and reportedly reaped a $1.1-billion settlement.

Zuckerberg has called the film, which received eight Academy Award nominations including best picture, “fiction.” In it, his character tells the Winklevosses: “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook.”

But that’s exactly what the Winklevosses said they did.

The article suggests that the Winklevosses can’t really lose here: if the courts say they shouldn’t receive more money, they still get to receive the initial settlement. We can ask how much The Social Network influenced the decision to seek more money. There were relatively few people in the media who concentrated on the veracity or one-sided nature of this story. For many who saw this Oscar-nominated film, Zuckerberg looks like a jerk.

Of course, this movie and portrayal should have little influence on the courts. And the Winklevosses say they have new evidence for the courts to consider. But I suspect the case was brought in part because of the positive portrayal of the Winkevosses in this film. If this case were in the court of public opinion (and perceptions), would the Winklevosses win?

Live event tickets and the first sale doctrine

Posted on by

Daniel Indiviglio over at The Atlantic discusses the potential for eliminating all secondary markets in live event tickets:

If you have ever sold even[t] tickets through the online resale market StubHub, then you may have received an e-mail last week about the dangers of paperless tickets. It cautions that companies “like Ticketmaster” are moving to restrictive paperless ticketing systems, which could kill the secondary market for tickets….According to the Fan Freedom Project, a group speaking out against this product that StubHub links to in its email, there are essentially two kinds:

Restricted transfer (closed-loop system): Primary ticketing agencies have sole control over sales, restricting the transfer of tickets and allowing them to be resold only on their own proprietary exchanges – and with their price restrictions which are often unrelated to the market value of the ticket.

Prohibition of ticket transfer: You purchase paperless tickets with a credit card and must provide the same credit card and a photo ID at the event venue. A swipe of the credit card at the gate produces a slip confirming the location of the reserved seat. The ticket cannot be transferred, sold or given away to another consumer.

Hmm…this sounds suspiciously like book publishers’ plans to undermine libraries and software companies’ recent progress in eliminating the secondary market for software.  Doesn’t anybody want to actually own anything anymore?

Wired’s David Rowan certainly thinks renting rather than owning is the wave of the future, as I discussed in a previous post.  However, Rowan’s analysis focused on the “idling capacity” of personal assets (e.g., a lawnmower that you only use once a week) and how the Internet is helping individuals coordinate more efficient arrangements (e.g., sharing that lawnmower among a wide group of “neighbors”).  The idea here is to increase asset utilization and thus maximize the consumer surplus.  (To round off the example:  lawn mower manufacturers may be upset, but the economy is better off overall since resources are freed for more productive uses than making a ton of lawnmowers that will only be used for 2 hours per week.)

In contrast, eliminating secondary markets in tickets, books, and software only benefits the producer surplus.  It allows de facto monopolies (like Ticketmaster for live event tickets) and copyright monopolies (like those enjoyed by publishers of books and software by virtue of their rightful copyrights) to extend those monopolies over the entire market (since they no longer have to compete with resold tickets, used books, and previously owned software).  Under these circumstances, offering consumers something less than full ownership in their tickets, books, and software doesn’t benefit the economy — it simply increases monopoly, expanding inefficiency and the deadweight loss triangle.

For copyrighted works, the first sale doctrine was supposed to prevent owners from eliminating secondary markets, but that doctrine is under judicial attack.  As for tickets, it remains to be seen whether established industry players like Ticketmaster will be able to further their monopolies by choking off the secondary market.  But it doesn’t look good for consumers — or economic efficiency.

PC games

Posted on by

Michael Arrington over at TechCrunch is reporting that Zynga recently removed “Wedding Chapels” from its CityVille game:

Players could previously buy “Wedding Chapels,” which looked like small country churches but without a cross or other religious symbols, to add to their city. But the virtual item has been removed and replaced with the more secular and nondescript “Wedding Hall.” With two gold ring things that somehow makes me think only of McDonalds.

No word yet from Zynga concerning their reasons for the change.  Arrington, however, thinks the company was just taking the easy way out:

I don’t know why this bothers me so much, since I’m not very religious myself. But it just seems so artificially politically correct.

As a leader in social network games, Zynga (Wikipedia backgrounder) certainly has a lot of constituents to keep happy.  But I have to agree with Arrington that this seems unnecessarily petty.

Quick Review: The King’s Speech

Posted on by

The upcoming Oscars seem to be a battle between two films: The Social Network (see my earlier review here and sagescape’s here) and The King’s Speech. I just had a chance to see the second film and have some thoughts about this Best Picture contender.

1. Since this is a historical drama, I expected this film to be somewhat bland and formulaic. It was neither.

2. There is a little bit of a storyline about the gap between British royalty and the common people. In the film, this gap is between King George VI and his speech therapist, an untrained but effective practitioner. The question arises: how can someone rule a country (and empire) if either side has little idea of how the other lives? We could probably ask similar questions today about many of the people at the top of our social hierarchy.

3. The film had more humor, albeit fairly dry, than I was expecting. I don’t know that I would think of Colin Firth as a comic actor but he has some good lines spoken by a struggling character.

4. The context of the film is engaging as Europe inches toward World War II. Even if the timeline in the movie doesn’t quite match the historical record, the struggles of King George VI are heightened by the gathering storm.

5. The peak of the film is a speech by King George VI. Even though it is an important speech delivered at a key historical moment, I appreciated that the musical score and the editing was understated and intimate. Too often, I think films use music and editing as a crutch to cover up less-than-exciting climaxes. Good plots don’t need to be oversold.

6. I thought The Social Network was interesting but not great. In comparison, The King’s Speech is weightier, has better acting, and doesn’t have to rely on edgy dialogue or a current storyline. My vote for the Best Picture (between these two and the other nominees I’ve seen including True Grit, Toy Story 3, and Inception): The King’s Speech.

(Critics also like this film: RottenTomatoes.com says the film is 94% fresh with 188 positive reviews out of 199 total reviews.)

Musical innovation

Posted on by

As I noted in passing a few days ago when discussing the Brittney Spears’ dispute with the Bellamy Brothers, pop songs are pretty much all alike.

The same goes for music labels’ business models.  Commenting on a recent Financial Times article, paidContent suggests that “new” music services reportedly in development by Apple and Google — allowing individuals to store music on a “hard drive in the sky” — seem to be less “innovation” than “more of the same”:

The idea sticks closely to today’s à la carte, per-track model of buying individual tracks, which itself replicates yesteryear’s model in which music was packaged up in to individual plastic units of consumer product.Growth in this method of buying digital music has basically peaked in the U.S.. Will a hard drive in the sky give it a lift? Unlikely. Some now think that illegal music consumption is so tempting that the industry should effectively mimic this “music like water” approach legally.

Of course, Rhapsody has an all-you-can-eat model, has been available in the U.S. for years, and is a bit player.  Maybe it’s time to start coming up with some actually new ideas…

The ubiquity of the standing ovation

Posted on by

My wife and I recently had the chance to see Les Misérables in Chicago. At the end of the show, the crowd gave a standing ovation. It seems that this is no longer unusual: whether it is a high school play, an orchestra concert, or a big-time musical, the crowd gives a standing ovation. Is this a new social norm?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, here is the definition of a standing ovation: “a rousing ovation conferred by an audience standing as a mark of enthusiastic approval, esp. after a speech.” But I have always thought that a standing ovation is not just given when the crowd enthusiastically approves; rather, it is reserved for special occasions, when the performance or speaker has done a tremendous job. This more restrictive definition is supported by Wikipedia: “A standing ovation is a form of applause where members of a seated audience stand up while applauding. This is done on special occasions by an audience to show their approval and is done after extraordinary performances of particularly high acclaim…Standing ovations are considered to be a special honor.” If this is the social norm, how can every performance be worthy of a standing ovation?

So why might crowds be more willing to give more frequent standing ovations? A few thoughts:

1. It has lost its status as something done for a special or noteworthy performance. It is now perfunctory. Crowds think they are supposed to give a standing ovation no matter what.

2. A more nuanced explanation: in the case of something like Les Misérables, the average attendee does not know whether the actors have given a good performance or not. This is a world-renowned musical, the attendees have paid a lot of money to attend, and so it must have been good and deserving of a standing ovation. The key here is that the average person can’t easily distinguish the quality of many performances and is left to judge the performance by other factors, such as its status. Since the theater or going to the orchestra is a rare event for many and it is accompanied by ideas about high culture and fancier dress, the standing ovation may just seem like the right thing to do.

(This is supported by an incident after the musical: a teenage couple was walking out and one said, “Epinone was just terrible.” The other said, “Yeah, her singing was bad.” A few of us who overheard this just smiled and looked at each other. How were we to know whether this was true or not? Presumably, one would have had to see this musical multiple times or listened to the music many times before a judgment could be made.)

If the standing ovation is now normal, what can a crowd do to show extreme enthusiasm or to mark an excellent performance? A few options: a prolonged applause or loud whistling or yelling along with the clapping.

Settling the score

Posted on by

Daniel J. Wakin over at the New York Times has a write-up about Edward W. Guo and the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP):

The site, the International Music Score Library Project, has trod in the footsteps of Google Books and Project Gutenberg and grown to be one of the largest sources of scores anywhere. It claims to have 85,000 scores, or parts for nearly 35,000 works, with several thousand being added every month. That is a worrisome pace for traditional music publishers, whose bread and butter comes from renting and selling scores in expensive editions backed by the latest scholarship. More than a business threat, the site has raised messy copyright issues and drawn the ire of established publishers.

Has it ever.  Apparently, all this free music sharing of hundreds-of-years-old music is not putting money in the right people’s pockets:

While a boon to garret-living, financially struggling young musicians, the library has caught the attention of music publishers.

Take that, struggling musicians!  Music publishers are feeling the heat!  Though, really, it’s only going to hurt all of you in the end:

“I don’t know if I would call it a threat, but I do believe it hurts sales,” said Ed Matthew, a senior promotion manager at G. Schirmer in New York. “It is that profit that helps us to continue to bring out more composers’ work.”

Wait…what?  It is the profit from selling/renting sheet music composed by long-dead composers like Beethoven at above-market prices that allows the G. Schirmer company “to bring out more composers’ work”?  Insofar as this even makes sense, they can only mean one of two things:

1.  Traditional music publishers can only continue to publish public domain scores if they can continue to sell it at monopoly prices (e.g., $30-50 for “[a] set of parts for a mainstream string quartet”, according to the NYTimes article).

Analysis:  Good riddance.  IMSLP will publish it for free.  Deadweight loss triange:  gone.

2.  Traditional music publishers can only afford to take a bath on contemporary composers if it can subsidize them with profits from public domain scores of dead composers.

Analysis:  Whatever this is, it’s not a business argument.  There are plenty of reasons to support new composers (and musicians generally) that have nothing to do with business, of course.  One may think that the arts are intrinsically valuable, or may want to give back/pay it forward, or may simply want the prestige of having one’s name connected rising talent as a “patron”.  All fair enough.  But there’s no business reason for a traditional music publisher to subsidize new talent with monopoly money.  Why should it do that?  It would make much more money if it simply sold the old public domain stuff and told new composers to take a hike.  (Unless, of course, it does make money off the new composers….)

You can’t have it both ways, G. Schirmer.  Either you do make money off new composers (in which case the issue is completely unrelated to your publication of public domain scores) or you don’t.  If you don’t, you have been running a charity, not a business.

I should point out that if G. Schirmer (or any other traditional music publisher) has been effectively running a charity for new composers up until now, I thank them.  Seriously.  This was very kind of them and the sort of thing that should be encouraged.

I hasten to add, however, that just because a music publisher may have used some of its profits to support the arts doesn’t mean that they should be able to assert legal rights they don’t have to public domain musical scores just because the Internet is threatening their traditional business model.  The arts can be supported much more directly and efficiently.  There’s no need to expand copyright law to allow a revenue stream to continue flowing into the publisher’s pockets that a trickle may eventually find its way into the tip jar of the up-and-coming composer.

Update 2/27/2011: TechDirt selected my comment summarizing this post as an “Editor’s Choice” in their comments-of-the-week wrap-up!

“Singing”

Posted on by

Is there something in the hyperspace? William Shatner, best known for his portrayal of Captain Kirk on Star Trek, is rather infamous for his spoken-song style. Now TechDirt draws our attention to James Earl Jones, who gave voice to Darth Vader in Star Wars, who is apparently jumping in on the act:

the great actor James Earl Jones recites some Justin Bieber lyrics while a guest on the Gayle King Show.

Here’s a direct link to the YouTube video.

As TechDirt’s Mike Masnick asks,

So here’s a simple question: is this copyright infringement? Did the Gayle King Show properly license the lyrics from the copyright holder? Perhaps it did, but we’ve seen music publishers get pretty worked up about various websites posting lyrics online and have heard stories about books not being able to be published because they quoted snippets of lyrics without a license.

Assuming fair use is off the table, I don’t think JEJ’s recitation qualifies for the compulsory license provisions of U.S. copyright law because he was performing on TV — he would have needed a synchronization license.  Moreover, according to 17 U.S.C. section 115(a)(2):

A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner. [emphasis added]

I think we can all agree that JEJ changed the basic melody of this work.

Of course, there is no doubt a simpler explanation for all this.  Bieber’s song “Baby” is repped by ASCAP, and ASCAP offers blanket licenses that allow for TV broadcasts of their works.  I’m guessing the Gayle King Show (or, more likely, the Oprah Winfrey Network) simply paid the requisite fees.