Kurt Sutter (Sons of Anarchy, The Shield) on Google's anti-copyright stance

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by chuck norriss, Mar 19, 2014.


  1. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Excellent.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ter_google_s_copyright_stance_is_bad_for.html
    article has profanity sorry

    quote:
    Every writer, producer, actor, musician, director, tech wizard, and fine artist working today needs to be aware of what this all means for our future—we will lose the ability to protect and profit from our own work. Every kid out there who aspires to be an actor or musician or artist: This is your future that’s at stake. More importantly, everyone who enjoys quality entertainment: This impacts you most of all. Content excellence cannot sustain itself if it loses its capacity to reward the talent that creates it.
    Consider this clunky analogy: If your local car dealership started selling your favorite luxury car for $1,000, then $100, then started giving it away, what do you think would happen to the quality of that vehicle? Before long, the manufacturer would be forced to let go of the skilled laborer, the artisan, and the craftsman, and eventually cut back on everything in the production process. And before long, that fabulous, high-end car you so enjoyed will be a sheet of warped plywood on top of two rusty cans.

    On point:
    No one benefits from piracy except the criminals and the portal that opens its doors to them. Stealing content may feel like a win, but supporting piracy will ultimately diminish the quality of the content you’ve come to love and depend on.
  2. bongomania

    bongomania Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    PDX, OR
    Disclosures:
    owner, OVNIFX and OVNILabs
    And yet the plywood with rusty cans has never happened and probably will never happen. Think about it--the average musician, even the moderately popular musician, hasn't been able to make a sustainable living that way for at least the last 20 years. Yet people keep making music, and some of it is quite good!
  3. DiabolusInMusic

    DiabolusInMusic Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Location:
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    Woah there Chuck... did you have written permission to re-post that quote? I would hate to see the feds kick in your door for copyright infringement.

    I disagree Bongo, in the terms of music, sure I agree. But when it comes to great TV you might need million dollar budgets and that is not even with salaries, that cannot happen without big corporate players. Big corporate players don't want to play if they will not see a large return on their investment, so TV quality suffers. We have all seen the horrible downward trend in Hollywood movies over the last decade or so, TV has started to see it with the rapid spread of illegal streaming. It is really hard to feel sympathetic for somebody when they earn more in a year than most do in a decade; I feel worse for the little guys holding the cameras and lights.
  4. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  5. bongomania

    bongomania Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    PDX, OR
    Disclosures:
    owner, OVNIFX and OVNILabs
    Really, have we? Seems to me that there are just as many high-quality movies coming out now as there were 20 or even 30 years ago. Yes there's a lot of crap, but it was the same way then too. There might be more crud now, but that's just because there is more overall product on the market, now that so much of movie production is done digitally and more affordably than ever.
    There is better TV on now than there has been since MASH in the 70s. All those cable and Netflix series' that everyone loves? Come on, we didn't have anything remotely that good on TV in such steady supply for most of the last 30 years.
  6. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    To bongo's point, artists will still create good work, so yeah, the car analogy may be inaccurate, but it's clear that in the music industry it killed the small labels even some big ones & changed the way unsigned/signed bands profit from the sales of their songs if the songs are getting jacked. People will find another way to make money. No choice.

    In film/tv, if anything, some potentially great shows won't get green-lit because of lack of budget. Know anyone trying to produce a film or show or album but are held back because of no funding? They just have to find a way to get the money but ultimately a lot of stuff not being made because no funding.
  7. bongomania

    bongomania Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    PDX, OR
    Disclosures:
    owner, OVNIFX and OVNILabs
    It has always been that way, though. I challenge you to find even one piece of solid evidence that there is more difficulty getting funding for a creative project now than there was in any earlier time.
  8. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I work in film finance at a major studio. I can tell you (without details) as sure as I'm sitting here writing to you, that fewer riskier projects are produced. Yes we still make many films & tv shows but films like Dallas Buyers Club--pitched for 20 years--aren't picked up because film co's don't want to fund a project that may not be fruitful. And yes studios still make guaranteed money makers (see: Disney) and nothing else.
    Yes they're in it for hte money; they're not doing it for free. I recognize that.
  9. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    And by risky I don't mean bad. Nirvana was risky. Bauhaus was risky. From corporate p.o.v.
  10. theretheyare

    theretheyare Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    It's a solid argument that Sitter makes, and it does not apply altogether to music. Music has been made by real people for real people in the same moment in the same room since the dawn of ages. The whole industry aspect is the reproduction part, which is the 'making records' part, indeed in the 2nd half of the 20th century an alternative source of income for musicians.

    Nowadays a record is either a vanity project, a business card or a store sign. While film/tv can't exist without the reproduction element, you still can be a great musician who makes high quality music in a public space. So the car analogy does not apply here.
  11. bongomania

    bongomania Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    PDX, OR
    Disclosures:
    owner, OVNIFX and OVNILabs
    So let me see if I understand. For 20 years, DBC was pitched and not picked up. Then streaming and torrenting came along, and only afterward that movie was picked up and funded.

    Yes?
  12. chuck norriss

    chuck norriss Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    point being studios are even more frugal now than ever. the studios will find ways to make money. htey have money; they'll make money. Only they're making fewer, in states and countries that offer tax incentives. Or you just chug along and keep making products and hope people don't steal them? What would you do if your dvd/home entertainment revenue dropped? If your songs were stolen?
  13. inthevelvet

    inthevelvet Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Location:
    AZ
    I have to agree. I'd say quality of TV overall has definitely improved. There was some good stuff back in the day, but there was a whole lot of real garbage out there. I knew the Brady Bunch sucked when I was 8 :eek:
    I'm happy to pay for stuff I like and am 100% against piracy of music or film/tv. I feel the artists should be compensated for their work, and don't even have a problem if they become obscenely wealthy should they be fortunate enough their work is well received. The reality is though, that the OP article is just not playing out the way he says at all. In fact it seems to be the opposite is true - I feel like I have more good options than time. Sure as an adult I have less spare time than I did as a kid in the late 70's, but between quality tv shows, solid independent films, and the myriad of great new music available, my biggest problem is I can't possibly get to all the music/tv/movies I'd like to check out.
    I certainly do agree with Sutter that getting all the parties at interest involved in real dialogue to start working toward a fair solution would beat the heck out of the current method of seeing whether Google or Hollywood can make a larger number of lawyers rich.
  14. mapadofu

    mapadofu

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    To me, this fight seems like it is all about who is going to pay for copyright enforcement: the current copyright holders are trying to force the enforcement burden onto the tech companies, and the tech companies are fighting back. (The status quo is that it is the copyright holders' job). I don't expect that how this particular fight pans out will have any long term effect on the overall quality/quantity of media product that ends up getting produced, or how small players will fare in the market etc; i.e. the quality/quantity will go up, or down or whatever, irrespective of whether the tech companies end up having to be more proactive in copyright enforcement.

Share This Page