Sony Pictures CEO Hates the Internet

[Emabulator]

Dave Rosenberg from CNET is reporting (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10242526-62.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5) that Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO, Michael Lynton, had the following to say about the Internet at a breakfast co-hosted by The New Yorker and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet...(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It's as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, 'Give it to me now,' and if you don't give it to them for free, they'll steal it."

[Chaos Machine]

Fired in 5...4...THREETWOONE

[MasterEvilAce]

To be honest, the internet is more of a bunch of people who like to help each other... generally for free.

Companies like Sony, on the other than, are more like a bunch of people who want to be paid for help

[Zander]

Oh Sony, don't let anyone change you.

I love you exactly the crazy-ass way you are.

[breeze]

concentrate on making the ps3 more affordable to the average family household and stop saying STUPID shit... better yet do like Jerry Jones here in Dallas and impose a gag order on the whole damn company Mr. stringer...and yes before the SDF kicks in, I know Stringer didn't say it, but he IS president and ceo of the company

[JazGalaxy]

I think he's coming from a business perspective with this... and from a business perspective I think he's right, really.

Few have the ability to monetize the internet and businesses left and right are losing money/folding due to the influence of the internet.

[Silverbaine]

Well he hates the internet, but he loves the inter-webs, and webber-net, so its all still good.

(no idea where im going with this)

[Syl]

I think he's coming from a business perspective with this... and from a business perspective I think he's right, really.

Few have the ability to monetize the internet and businesses left and right are losing money/folding due to the influence of the internet.

I agree with him to an extent as well. What he says is completely true, but the truth is that people simply don't care - they want things now.

[Steve_Erhardt]

I can see how he might arrive at making such a statement, and it's really not without merit, but... It seems spectacularly foolish for the CEO of a company like Sony let something like that slip past his lips.

Of course, over the past couple years, seems like Sony's been going out of their way to make sure SOMEBODY well-placed in the company has SOMETHING fantastically controversial to say. It's almost losing it's charm, really. =\

[shadow763]

Wow he is so dumb. Put your crap online for a good price and people will buy it in droves. I do it all the time. What an idiot.

[kwolf]

From a "business perspective", it's just out of touch. He's right in one sense that the old models that sony has relied upon to rip off consumers is breaking down in favor of a model where content providers have to actually provide value. But, I guess that's why they lost more than a billion dollars last year.

[oldjadedgamer]

Yup, and the movie execs hated VHS because they thought it was going to kill the movie business off. Old idiots like this who can't look a day ahead need to be fired and replaced by more forward thinkers.

Complain all you want but the internet is not going anywhere. Adapt or die.

[JazGalaxy]

From a "business perspective", it's just out of touch. He's right in one sense that the old models that sony has relied upon to rip off consumers is breaking down in favor of a model where content providers have to actually provide value. But, I guess that's why they lost more than a billion dollars last year.

Well again, from the business perspective he's probably talking less about the PS3 than he is movies and the spread of movies on the internet.

The online distribution of movies is theft. Pure and simple. I'm not saying I haven't taken advantage of the practice, but from the business perspective it is theft. To have to look at your books and see the amount of "potential sales" you're losing due to internet theft, and to see the opinions on the internet of the people who do it and...

I can see why this guy might be pulling his hair out a little.

As for the "provide a good product for a good price and I'll pay it", that's just not true. you're THINK about paying it, sure, but there are products you have enjoyed and not paid for. Everyone has. And for movies like Wolverine that people downloaded before they saw them... they had no idea whether it was gonig to be worth the money or not until after they had stolen it. That's the very nature of movies.

[Virtuoso]

Well again, from the business perspective he's probably talking less about the PS3 than he is movies and the spread of movies on the internet.

The online distribution of movies is theft. Pure and simple. I'm not saying I haven't taken advantage of the practice, but from the business perspective it is theft. To have to look at your books and see the amount of "potential sales" you're losing due to internet theft, and to see the opinions on the internet of the people who do it and...

I can see why this guy might be pulling his hair out a little.

As for the "provide a good product for a good price and I'll pay it", that's just not true. you're THINK about paying it, sure, but there are products you have enjoyed and not paid for. Everyone has. And for movies like Wolverine that people downloaded before they saw them... they had no idea whether it was gonig to be worth the money or not until after they had stolen it. That's the very nature of movies.

It could be argued that, in a large part, the reason why online film piracy has been so prevalent is that the movie industry has taken its sweet time in developing a legal online distribution model.

Look at music sales; online piracy initially took a large chunk out of the potential profits. Since the advent of services like iTunes, Amazon Unbox, and the like, there has been a surge of profits coming in from online distribution models. What has the movie industry done? Even still, there is only minimal digital distribution in place for film. Why is this the case? People claim that not enough people would be able to utilize such a service due to not enough broadband penetration, or speeds that are too low. If that were true, then how can piracy be such a problem? One of two things can be true: both piracy is rampant and there is a market for digital distribution, or neither is true.

The fact of the matter is that people struggle with change in general, more so if it threatens their livelihood. Its easier to complain about the change than it is to adapt to it, and this guy is just more proof of that.

You're last point, about people not paying for stuff if they have the option - thats empirically false. If that were the case, services like iTunes, GoG, Amazon Unbox, and every other digital distribution model would be losing money like crazy. Because this isn't true, you are demonstrably wrong.

[Windsong]

Any relation to Krazy Ken? Surely he MUST be related to that assclown.

[JazGalaxy]

You're last point, about people not paying for stuff if they have the option - thats empirically false. If that were the case, services like iTunes, GoG, Amazon Unbox, and every other digital distribution model would be losing money like crazy. Because this isn't true, you are demonstrably wrong.

Nonsense. If services like LimeWire and The Pirate Bay ceased to exist or trade in audio then you would be right. But since they haven't YOU are demonstrably wrong.

To say "some people are using Itunes so internet theft doesn't exist" makes no sense.

Purely anectodotal evidence, but I have never seen one person's MP3 player that doesn't have pirated music on it.

Which is back to what I was saying. You find something online at a reasonable price and you THINK about buying it. THat is a step up from not thinking about it and just stealing it, but from this guys perspective taht is cold comfort.

[Chaos Machine]

It could be argued that, in a large part, the reason why online film piracy has been so prevalent is that the movie industry has taken its sweet time in developing a legal online distribution model.

Look at music sales; online piracy initially took a large chunk out of the potential profits. Since the advent of services like iTunes, Amazon Unbox, and the like, there has been a surge of profits coming in from online distribution models. What has the movie industry done? Even still, there is only minimal digital distribution in place for film. Why is this the case? People claim that not enough people would be able to utilize such a service due to not enough broadband penetration, or speeds that are too low. If that were true, then how can piracy be such a problem? One of two things can be true: both piracy is rampant and there is a market for digital distribution, or neither is true.

The fact of the matter is that people struggle with change in general, more so if it threatens their livelihood. Its easier to complain about the change than it is to adapt to it, and this guy is just more proof of that.

You're last point, about people not paying for stuff if they have the option - thats empirically false. If that were the case, services like iTunes, GoG, Amazon Unbox, and every other digital distribution model would be losing money like crazy. Because this isn't true, you are demonstrably wrong.

when i went to see star trek at a theater near my house it cost $10usd per ticket, a large box of popcorn and 3 drinks costed $22 in total it cost nearly $60 dollars for 3 people to go see a movie.

and you wonder why movie piracy is so prevelent?

[MasterEvilAce]

The online distribution of movies is theft. Pure and simple.

Jacking up prices to ridiculousness is theft. It robs you of your own potential sales. They're hurting themselves. Seriously.

I have no problem paying $5 to go see a movie. I have a problem with now having to pay $10 to see a movie, not being able to bring in my own food and drinks, being ridiculously over charged for when I do want them during a 3 hour benjamin button movie.

Stuff like Hulu is excellent. It's free, you sometimes have to watch what, a 10 second commercial? And has LOADS of availability? Count me in. Anyone who doesn't jump in on that bandwagon is an idiot.

Let's encourage pioneers and not try to strike down every bit advancement because we're afraid

[Virtuoso]

Nonsense. If services like LimeWire and The Pirate Bay ceased to exist or trade in audio then you would be right. But since they haven't YOU are demonstrably wrong.

To say "some people are using Itunes so internet theft doesn't exist" makes no sense.

Purely anectodotal evidence, but I have never seen one person's MP3 player that doesn't have pirated music on it.

Which is back to what I was saying. You find something online at a reasonable price and you THINK about buying it. THat is a step up from not thinking about it and just stealing it, but from this guys perspective taht is cold comfort.

You have completely misunderstood my point. I never said that internet piracy won't happen; people will steal regardless of whether or not they are steal tangible goods (like CDs) or digital goods (like songs). Theft happens in any field - overcoming that theft is the goal.

You stated
The online distribution of movies is theft. Pure and simple. I'm not saying I haven't taken advantage of the practice, but from the business perspective it is theft. To have to look at your books and see the amount of "potential sales" you're losing due to internet theft, and to see the opinions on the internet of the people who do it and...

As for the "provide a good product for a good price and I'll pay it", that's just not true.

Which is obviously not true. Some people will steal, yeah, but that is going to happen regardless. The idea is that you remain profitable in spite of theft occurring, something that the business models that I have mentioned have accomplished to do. Staying the course in the face of a changing business landscape is going to screw you: if people want to watch movies on their computer, and there is no digital distribution model available, then their only option is to steal. If you provide an easy, well priced option, fewer people will steal. Its that simple.

Moreover, its not the internet that is cutting so deeply into the revenues of movie theaters and DVD sales, rather its the outfits that copy and print counterfeit DVDs. This group existed prior to the internet.

[Virtuoso]

when i went to see star trek at a theater near my house it cost $10usd per ticket, a large box of popcorn and 3 drinks costed $22 in total it cost nearly $60 dollars for 3 people to go see a movie.

and you wonder why movie piracy is so prevelent?

Ummm... I don't think people steal movies because of the cost of popcorn.

But this illustrates an excellent point; if a good movie comes out, you are going to go see it in spite of the absurd cost of attending. Putting a good product out there (even at a higher price than what would otherwise be acceptable) is often enough to get people lining up to give you money.

Just for a second, lets look at all the movies that Sony has distributed from 2007-2008.

# Punisher: War Zone (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (non-USA) (theatrical)
# Quantum of Solace (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (theatrical)
# Linewatch (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Passengers (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (all media)
# Tortured (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (theatrical)
# Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Intervention (2008/I) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (theatrical)
# Winged Creatures (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (all media)
# Hancock (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Made of Honor (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Clean Break (2008) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Impulse (2008) (V) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (theatrical)
# Casi divas (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (theatrical)
# Hero Wanted (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (USA) (all media)
# Zombie Strippers! (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (all media)
# Love Lies Bleeding (2008) (V) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Outpost (2008) ... Distributor (2008) (worldwide) (theatrical)
# Pistol Whipped (2008) (V) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# A Modern Twain Story: The Prince and the Pauper (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (UK) (DVD), Distributor (2007) (USA) (DVD) (North America)
# Saawariya (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Across the Universe (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Blump's Squeezable Documentary (2007) (V) ... Distributor (2007) (USA) (DVD)
# Superbad (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Daddy Day Camp (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Hostel: Part II (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Surf's Up (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Spider-Man 3 (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Are We Done Yet? (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (worldwide) (all media)
# Reign Over Me (2007) ... Distributor (2006) (USA) (theatrical)
# Ghost Rider (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (USA) (theatrical)
# Ricky Jay Plays Poker (2007) (V) ... Distributor (2007) (USA) (DVD)
# Premonition (2007/I) ... Distributor (2007) (USA) (theatrical)
# The Messengers (2007) ... Distributor (2007) (USA) (theatrical)

A total of maybe 3 or 4 of those were good movies, but most of them were complete trash. While their profits for 2007 were around 78 million (largely due to the success of Spiderman 3), they reported a loss in 2008. With blockbusters like Starship Troopers 3 and Zombie Strippers, one wonders how that could have happened.

The motive of Mr. Rosenburg is revealed! His division is failing due to poor decisions in which movies they are going to greenlight, and the result is a loss in profits. Instead of fixing the problem, lets blame the internet instead!

Idiot.

Note: Thats the list from IMDB, under "Sony Pictures Entertainment", which is distinct from their "Home Entertainment" and "Sony Pictures Studios" (a post processing firm, not a distributor).

[murpes]

"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet...(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It's as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, 'Give it to me now,' and if you don't give it to them for free, they'll steal it."

I don't really think the Internet is a cause of an entitled society, but rather a reflection of it.

[RMan]

Some people are really missing the point with 'stealing' when it comes to digital media. The term stealing is really a poor one, because it implies that the motivation is simply not wanting to pay, but that’s not true here. For many, getting the pirated video is actually more convenient than getting it legally, and until that changes, there’s absolutely no way someone can argue that piracy is the result of people not being willing to pay, it’s clearly more than that. This was true with music years back, where if you wanted a digital version of a song, you were expected to buy the CD and rip it to an MP3, clearly much more trouble than simply downloading (regardless of how much/if you were paying).

Hulu is a good example of a reasonable response. Because of the linear nature of TV, I’m sure producers realized that if people were going to catch up on missed episodes, or shows they weren’t previously watching, their only real option was to download the pirated episodes. Hulu is nice, and they likely still get me to watch more commercials than I do with TV, since I DVR everything.

This guy’s thinking seems pretty out of touch, I mean, if you have no ability to adapt, yea, it’s change, and therefore bad. But the sense of immediacy that internet savvy people have is not itself a bad thing, stop whining about it and just try to effectively charge people for it. Charge $10 to watch HD movies online as soon as they’re released in theaters, or a week after, considering the smaller number of hands the money goes through and cost involved, likely still make as much money. If ultimately many people would rather watch the movies at home, then just embrace that and move on.

[MasterEvilAce]

Ghost Rider, Punisher: War Zone, Hancock...

Man those were terrible.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

This is yet another debate that cannot be resolved on a message board. Nobody's mind will be changed. My take is obvious: The downloading of ANY IP regardless of silly reasons is wrong. The concept of, "Movie tix are too $$" or "They deserve to be pirated because they don't put out good movies" is lame.

Why is iTunes a success? It's because we're at a point where a song can be downloaded easy and hassle free in 10 seconds for 99 cents. That's one of many, many reasons.

Times like this I always find it funny watching people justify piracy of any form. People tend to over simplify what it takes to make things like a movie, or run a studio, or even a movie theater. More often than not, the only experience these net experts have is how to download a movie for free.

Here's the easy solution: If you download anything illegally, go for it. Just don't try to preach why it's right. It just sounds silly.

My feeling is that ten bucks is a great value for about 2 hours of entertainment. If the movie stinks, then a big part of that is my own fault for falling for it. The Internet is a great tool for checking reviews and checking boards as to what people think of a movie. There's enough material out there to get an idea if you'll like a movie or not. Despite all of this, the worst case scenario is that I'm out ten bucks.

[Kataron]

It is my belief that the internet is not a man-made creation at all, but rather a natural resource that we simply tap into and utilize to our own end. I picture it like the Lifestream from Final Fantasy 7, but filled with porn. The internet is, in a sense, God.

*tries to fight Sony's crazy with more crazy*

[Virtuoso]

Ghost Rider, Punisher: War Zone, Hancock...

Man those were terrible.

Punisher lost about 27 Million bucks. The other two were financially successful, but they are in the extreme minority - and they werent as successful as the 2007 lineup. Personally, I thought all three movies were pretty terrible.

[Virtuoso]

This is yet another debate that cannot be resolved on a message board. Nobody's mind will be changed. My take is obvious: The downloading of ANY IP regardless of silly reasons is wrong. The concept of, "Movie tix are too $$" or "They deserve to be pirated because they don't put out good movies" is lame.

Why is iTunes a success? It's because we're at a point where a song can be downloaded easy and hassle free in 10 seconds for 99 cents. That's one of many, many reasons.

Times like this I always find it funny watching people justify piracy of any form. People tend to over simplify what it takes to make things like a movie, or run a studio, or even a movie theater. More often than not, the only experience these net experts have is how to download a movie for free.

Here's the easy solution: If you download anything illegally, go for it. Just don't try to preach why it's right. It just sounds silly.

My feeling is that ten bucks is a great value for about 2 hours of entertainment. If the movie stinks, then a big part of that is my own fault for falling for it. The Internet is a great tool for checking reviews and checking boards as to what people think of a movie. There's enough material out there to get an idea if you'll like a movie or not. Despite all of this, the worst case scenario is that I'm out ten bucks.

In no way am I going to justify piracy, but that being said, standing in the corner and yelling "thats wrong!! stop it!!!" is not going to fix the problem. Changing one's business plan to coincide with the evolving business climate is the way to fix the problem, not acting like you are impotent to fix it.

As far as iTunes being a success because its quick and easy; there is no reason for that model to not be applied to movies as well. Plenty of streaming services can get movies up and running in 10 seconds, the problem is that movie studios dont want to release content to those services. Why? Because, as Rosenburg has so clearly shown us, they just don't get it yet.

[Sayshu]

His company, among multitudes of others, do not see the opportunities the Internet has created for them, and instead look to the few problems they feel is ruining them, to such an extent that they are letting others succeed at the cost of their failure, to embrace the medium.

You want good examples? Netflix, Steam, Hulu.

Yes people want things now. People are tired of overhyped months of waiting for 2 hours in a movie theater, and then another year of waiting for a video release. Perhaps if they adapted to that, and even improved on it dare I say, maybe they would make some money?

[JazGalaxy]

His company, among multitudes of others, do not see the opportunities the Internet has created for them, and instead look to the few problems they feel is ruining them, to such an extent that they are letting others succeed at the cost of their failure, to embrace the medium.

You want good examples? Netflix, Steam, Hulu.

Yes people want things now. People are tired of overhyped months of waiting for 2 hours in a movie theater, and then another year of waiting for a video release. Perhaps if they adapted to that, and even improved on it dare I say, maybe they would make some money?

You're missing the fact that Hulu doesn't make money (in the way that distributers want to make money)

The fact that people are making the argument that "it's not convenient enough so I'll steal it" validates the Sony guys entire statement.

Right or wrong, morally and legally the consumers should not have the right to dictate the terms of how they obtain the content.

Now, they can absolutely vote with their wallets. If 12 bucks is too much to pay for a movie, they can ABSOLUTELY not go. That is their right. But to say it's not worth it so I'll steal it... that's not morally or legally within their rights and that is what the Sony guy is upset about, I feel.

[JazGalaxy]

if people want to watch movies on their computer, and there is no digital distribution model available, then their only option is to steal. internet.

Yes, and I'm saying that is EXACTLY what he's speaking against.

When someone thinks that their "only option is to steal" when we're talking about entertainment then we have a massive problem on our hands and that's what the guy is talking about.

I absolutely hear what you're saying about them being in an "old business model" but what people are glossing over is the fact that a business model that is ineffective because of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR is not the same as a business model that is ineffective because technology has moved on or the tastes of the market have changed.

That's like a Bakery that puts their pies on the window to cool so jerks from the neighborhood come steal pies. And then when the baker complains they go " It's not our fault! It's your stupid outdated business mode!".

Now, clearly the baker should just NOT PUT THE PIES IN THE WINDOW, but legally and morally he should be able to. It's not up to the jerks stealing pies to dictate what the baker should do with his pies.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

As far as iTunes being a success because its quick and easy; there is no reason for that model to not be applied to movies as well. Plenty of streaming services can get movies up and running in 10 seconds, the problem is that movie studios dont want to release content to those services. Why? Because, as Rosenburg has so clearly shown us, they just don't get it yet.

There are many reasons. No offense meant to you (I'm being sincere), but there are many things that you nor I do not get here. You're greatly oversimplifying a solution by stating what you did above.
It's not just a matter of "not getting it".

Music was always available to a consumer to own on day 1. Theatrical releases never were. This just one reason why iTunes and the like were a natural movement. It was a lateral move. What exactly did a record label have to lose by making their product available in such a way?

What about movies? Movies cost multiple times more to create than music does. For a movie to break even it requires theatrical runs, TV rights, DVD sales, etc to cover the rising costs. I'm not saying there's no solution or evolution to the medium of theatrical runs. What I am saying is that you over simplified the problem/solution by saying, "Just release it digitally"

Let's think of it like this: How many Hollywood execs/studios are out there? We have Lionsgate, WB, Fox, Sony, etc to name a few. Are all of them out of touch? If a realistic and current method of making real money off the solution so many of us are quick to offer, don't you think one studio would have tried it by now?

[JazGalaxy]

There are many reasons. No offense meant to you (I'm being sincere), but there are many things that you nor I do not get here. You're greatly oversimplifying a solution by stating what you did above.
It's not just a matter of "not getting it".

Music was always available to a consumer to own on day 1. Theatrical releases never were. This just one reason why iTunes and the like were a natural movement. It was a lateral move. What exactly did a record label have to lose by making their product available in such a way?

What about movies? Movies cost multiple times more to create than music does. For a movie to break even it requires theatrical runs, TV rights, DVD sales, etc to cover the rising costs. I'm not saying there's no solution or evolution to the medium of theatrical runs. What I am saying is that you over simplified the problem/solution by saying, "Just release it digitally"

Let's think of it like this: How many Hollywood execs/studios are out there? We have Lionsgate, WB, Fox, Sony, etc to name a few. Are all of them out of touch? If a realistic and current method of making real money off the solution so many of us are quick to offer, don't you think one studio would have tried it by now?

I think you're absolutely right, but to go further on that tack: There are some studios doing it. Not unlike Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog.

But the problem is that people expect the quality of multimillion dollar movies and then want to pay little to nothing for them.

[lockwoodx]

"I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet...(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It's as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, 'Give it to me now,' and if you don't give it to them for free, they'll steal it."


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nnnK0TK9Uqs/RdZOoaR4fKI/AAAAAAAAAT4/E47Ivas7cic/s400/Mr.Burns%2Bof%2BJapan.gif

[Evil Avatar]

Yes people want things now. People are tired of overhyped months of waiting for 2 hours in a movie theater, and then another year of waiting for a video release. Perhaps if they adapted to that, and even improved on it dare I say, maybe they would make some money?

Perhaps they have adapted to it. When was the last time you waited an entire year to watch a movie on DVD? They have cut back the gap between when the movie is launched in the theater and when it comes out on DVD significantly. In some cases, the movie will launch on DVD only three or four months after it is in the theater. The standard seems to be 6 to 8 months for first run movies and 4 to 6 months for second rate movies.

Watchmen was released in the theater on March 8th. It comes out on DVD & Blu-ray on July 21st. Only around 5 months. (Less if you take into account a 5-week theater run.)

[Ebon Deth]

He may have over-generalized, but he spoke the truth.

People hate the truth.

[Orphiuchus]

He may have over-generalized, but he spoke the truth.

People hate the truth.

Man, fuck the truth.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

I think you're absolutely right, but to go further on that tack: There are some studios doing it. Not unlike Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog.

But the problem is that people expect the quality of multimillion dollar movies and then want to pay little to nothing for them.

Thanks for clarifying. See that? I'm out of touch too! :)

[KingFire]

He has a point, the internet, in most ways, make the life of us costumers easier and cheaper, yet it's now more difficult for companies, movie makers and games/software developers.

[automaton]

I think this is a legitimate debate. There is a serious issue here and I don't think it is piracy. The real problem here is that we now have large corporations out there who are fighting with their customers. You can complain about the "entitlement society" all you want and I think that is a considerable issue here, but what happened to the age old business philosophy of "the customer is always right?"

I'm sick and tired of gigantic corporations who can't change fast enough to keep up with the times complaining about some disastrous failure in their business model. It is happening with the car companies, airlines, and entertainment companies. It is not my problem that you've grown too big to be able to move fast enough to keep up with your customers. It is not my problem and mass piracy is the result. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that BOTH sides are at fault.

[see colon]

Snakes on a Plane made alot of money both in it's theatrical release and on DVD because of the internet. Had it not been for it's internet following, the movie would have been lucky to have been in a thearter to begin with, and may not have even had a positive return on invenstment.

The UFC also credits the internet for keeping it's fanbase alive durring the period where they were kicked off all magor pay per view distributers and had to hold their events outside of the US or on reservations becasue of sanctioning issues.

A vocal internet fanbase is part of the reason Family Guy got a second chance on TV.

Had the internet not existed, the popularity of open source software would have suffered because of a lack of exposure and free/cheap distribution. Linux wouldn't be a known property, and by extension there wouldn't be linux for PS2 or PS3.

Folding@Home wouldn't exist without the internet. Damn those suffering from cancer for feeling entitled that people should try to find a cure for such a horrible disease. And damn the PS3 for helping!

[LobsterMobster]

Well, Mr. Sony CEO, most of us can't afford to go shopping on Madison Avenue even during normal hours. If you realized that, maybe you wouldn't have priced your console out of the market.

[Chimpbot]

Well, Mr. Sony CEO, most of us can't afford to go shopping on Madison Avenue even during normal hours. If you realized that, maybe you wouldn't have priced your console out of the market.

The last time I checked, the man in charge of Sony's movie division had absolutely nothing to do with the PS3.
The fact that the man has money does not, in any way, shape or form, justify piracy and/or theft.

[the soUL TRAder]

It seems time to remind everybody that the root of music, storytelling and every other type of entertainment is to inspire the masses to overcome the limitations of humanity and to offer a small break from the brutality of reality.
The fact that corporate assclowns like this have turned the these great unifying mechanisms into profitized and polarized crap is the greatest theivery ever committed against man.

The internet is just the vehicle some of us will use to take it back.

Of course, the mindless muck studios shit out these days aren't even worthy of being stolden.

[brandonjclark]

Right or wrong, morally and legally the consumers should not have the right to dictate the terms of how they obtain the content.

I believe that what I've quoted from you in bold is dead wrong. See, we CAN dictacte how we receive the content. That's exactly our right as consumers because how we receive a product is as much of the product as the content itself, if we want it to be. If they don't want to change it, then they don't get the dollars of those who pirate for this reason.

Now, are there enough people who pirate for this reason (immediacy) to convert to a digital-only model which would offset the losses to the other, paying customer base? No, not yet. But if piracy of this nature rises to the point where it's above the amount of paying customers, then they would be forced to change the model. I don't think we're quite there yet as a society.

...too many old farts like me!

[AntB]

If something comes out on Hulu.com, I am much more likely to watch it. I go to Hulu to watch my shows and not my Cable company, because it's just that much easier. If Hulu doesn't have something, then I go and find it through means that don't make the producers of the show any money. But I go to Hulu first, because it's very convenient. I get to watch my shows anytime I want, and I don't mind, in the slightest, their commercials. If Hulu had a pay-to-watch model for, say, movies, I would probably opt in.

The point is, they [the companies] have to learn to match the ease of use and convenience the internet provides, and a lot of them simply can't. And this is why they are angry, because they can't figure out how to compete. Downloading shows is easy, but it's even easier to go on Hulu. If they gave me an easy way, such as Hulu, to watch their movies, even if I had to pay for the service, they would have me a customer.

[Grumsh]

Ghost Rider, Punisher: War Zone, Hancock...

Man those were terrible.

Ghost Rider was like watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer... I walked out of the theater (thank the lord it was bargain matinee) hiding my face so no one would recognize me as someone dumb enough to pay money for it.

Hancock, like Will Smiths previous movie was only good because.. it was a Will Smith Movie. Honestly if you take away his screen presence, the movie is lousy, and a butchery of the source material.

Punisher, well there hasn't really been any real screen success with that franchise, so yes I passed on this one.

[Evil Avatar]

A vocal internet fanbase is part of the reason Family Guy got a second chance on TV.

No, that isn't true. Family Guy got a second chance on TV because the DVD boxed set of Family Guy Season 1 sold over a million units.

It sold over a million units because the series was picked up by Cartoon Network which gave everyone who missed it on regular TV a chance to watch the show. And Cartoon Network advertised the Season 1 DVD boxed set constantly and they went one further and did those special Seth MacFarlane narrated episodes.

Family Guy is an example where the Sony Pictures CEO is right. It wasn't some kind of online nerd outcry that saved Family Guy, it was good old fashioned reruns and commercials for the boxed set that saved the series.

If anything, internet piracy of the Season 1 DVD boxed set cost them sales and might have slowed their hitting that magical 1 Million units that made everyone at the networks sit up and take notice of the show.

[lost]

I can see where he is coming from to be honest.

I won't play the innocent card but piracy has exploded since the internet did and you can't make excuses for it. Something they should have prepared for though.

As a consumer I find it frustrating that a guy realises that his customers want it and want it now but would rather stick to the old system. In an ideal world I would be able to stream online, rent or buy the DVD/BR or go to the movies all on release day.

The times I have downloaded films/TV were because I didn't have access to the content I wanted. Is that an excuse? No but its certainly a reason the entertainment industry needs to pay attention to.

There are some examples of things progressing. 'The Inbetweeners' is an amazing comedy whose second season just finished. I'll be picking up the DVD tomorrow while I'm forced to wait months and months for more Simpsons box-sets.

I will buy it if you give it to me. I am a ravenous consumer.

[Chaos Machine]

you cant just count the 10 dollar ticket as the only price paid for it, when you go see a movie sure you can opt out of buying beverages or snacks, but try telling that to your kid/significant other so you need to count the whole price of going to see a movie. for me it was nearly 60 bones for 3 people. ticket prices and concession stand prices have risen astronomically over the last decade and the frequency of which i do go see movies is becoming less and less as a direct result. Basically, unless its a great movie I know I am going to like I will wait for a rental, whereas 10 years ago I would still go see that movie I was iffy about.

What it all comes down to is that piracy is a symptom of a problem with the content provider alienating their customers, PERIOD.

[Evil Avatar]

What it all comes down to is that piracy is a symptom of a problem with the content provider alienating their customers, PERIOD.

Dude... what? That isn't even close to true. Piracy of games/music/movies has nothing to do with alienating the customer base because if it was then craptastic movies like Woverine wouldn't still be pulling in $130 Million in two weeks at the box office.

Piracy is nothing more than people who know better, but don't want to pay for something taking advantage of the fact that it is easily available on the internet. (And before the internet it was BBS's... and before that it was trading between friends.)

At the core it isn't a question of the companies not providing the content in the format people want to use... look at my earlier post... you can buy a movie on DVD less than four months after it hits the theater and you can buy it in HD quality if that is your choice.

It is as simple as people who should know better taking advantage of high speed connections to share something they should be paying for.

I understand the temptation to try to put the blame back on the publishers -- but that is another bullshit rationalization. It is their right to provide the content in whatever format they choose. It is not your right to download it if they don't provide it as quick as you want or in a format you want.

[bickle]

Ghost Rider was like watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I didn't find Ghost Rider to be an extremely well written horror/drama/comedy with interesting characters and intriguing themes at all.

[TeeCakes]

Well, Mr. Sony CEO, most of us can't afford to go shopping on Madison Avenue even during normal hours. If you realized that, maybe you wouldn't have priced your console out of the market.

Surprisingly there aren't that many of these willfully ignorant, blatantly anti-PS3 comments in this thread! :eek:

I admit I was ready to brandish my rusty old SDF six-shooters when I saw "Sony CEO" in the title and 3+ pages of comments!

It is my belief that the internet is not a man-made creation at all, but rather a natural resource that we simply tap into and utilize to our own end. I picture it like the Lifestream from Final Fantasy 7, but filled with porn. The internet is, in a sense, God.

*tries to fight Sony's crazy with more crazy*

Technically since Sony produced FF7 you're fighting Sony's crazy with Sony's awesomeness.

He may have over-generalized, but he spoke the truth.

People hate the truth.

QFT

Yet at the same time, you can't feel too sorry for the movie industry. The perpetual days of movie execs and actresses/actors putting a stranglehold on the industry's growth in North America with their blockbuster-fixated, anti-risk, anti-creativity "members only" mentality is the real reason why films are more likely to be stolen than paid for.

Hollywood is finally getting put on an equal playing field to indy filmmakers. The guys who pretty much have always ended up distributing their films for free and ALMOST NEVER see a return on their investment-- but who don't cry about how Hollywood is essentially a bunch of "entitlement thieves." Even though most indies find it impossible to be successful (due to the aforementioned "members only" elite) as Tinseltown ensures that the same people with the same ideas continue to be pushed ahead of others.

The real issue is that I can go to an indy film festival for $10 and be entertained all weekend, or pay the same price to sit through a predictable 1.5-hour Michael Bay wet dream starring the latest Scientology nut and that chick who's too-pretty-for-porn-but-would-do-a-topless-scene-if-it-makes-sense-for-the-character.

[Virtuoso]

I maintain that the dip in profits is due to a string of unprofitable movie ventures, and this statement is the result of pressure being put on him to make better decisions. It is always easier to point and blame the internet than it is admit that you made some shitty movies.

And TeeCakes, the SDF six shooters are not needed here. The guy from Sony is pissed that the current business climate doesn't take kindly to outmoded distribution platforms, just like movie execs blamed VHS, DVD burners, and music execs blamed tapes for below expected growth. In reality, dips in profits usually have more to do with a poor quality product, but who really wants to take responsibility for their own failures where its easier to blame the plebs?

[Anenome]

He's clearly channeling Ken Kutaragi :P

What he really means is that the internet isn't a place Sony has been able to monetize. Duh. Google has you beat there. It's iBusiness, and Sony is wedded to brick&mortar concepts. Traditionally, large mega-companies go out of business because they get passed up by concepts, and new corporations that embrace the cutting edge spring up and sweep away the old. One example: Sears swept away by Home Depot, or the upswing of Walmart over Kmart / Target. Similarly, Samsung is blowing away people in the consumer electronics market, a market previously thought very difficult to enter and compete in. Hell, we've even seen it in gaming, where Nintendo's disruptive technology in the Wii swept away an entire console generation.

The awesome thing is that these disruptive techs change our lives in radical ways, and are embraced when they perform a useful function. So, Walmart brought lower prices and thereby a higher standard of living for many, many people. Home Depot built a business model allowing them to be profitable on a mere 15% profit margin as opposed to the 30% their competitors were charging, resulting in lower housing costs and again a higher standard of living. Same in consumer electronics with Samsung, Vizio, etc. Without Vizio I wouldn't be typing this on a 22" LCD TV that doubles as a monitor (and a damn fine one).

Similarly, the Wii has changed the face of computer inputs, and I believe, will become the model for 3D input as 3D display becomes more standard in the future. Wii tech also led to the Johnny Lee head-tracking demonstration which will likely change the face of gaming in the next console generation, providing a 3D illusion on a normal screen, and giving massive game utility.

Our kids will one day marvel at the cave-man like thought of watching TV without head-tracking, without 3D, and while using a non positional tracking controller with primitive buttons. Oh the humanity. Damn spoiled brats!

[Virtuoso]

Also, while I feel that piracy is wrong, if an individual wants a product, and the company has not made that product available in a format they have access to, but there is a free version of a product in that format, then they will more than likely take advantage of it.

I think an analogous scenario are the markets in places like Russia and China for games. Often those people don't have access to legit copies of games, or they are priced at such absurd rates that no one can afford them. If they want access to the content, the only option is to purchase a pirated copy, and so they do. When a company decides to release their game in that territory at an affordable rate for the locals, guess what - they end up making a profit. I think Valve did something like this to curb piracy, and lo and behold, it worked.

Two choice tidbits from Gabe Newell:

Moving onto the hot-button issue of piracy, Newell says pricing is not the main problem. “The pricing issue, I think, is really misleading,” he says. “In the PC audience, these people are spending thousands of dollars on their PCs and their internet connectivity. They are perfectly happy to spend money, so that’s not the issue. But when it comes to the service, that’s where the pirates are way ahead of us.”

He gave an example of wanting to own copies of the Dr. Who television series on DVD – but being unable to legally do so, because it isn’t available in his region. When consumers are presented with such scenarios, pirates win out.

“If it makes total sense for me to have certain pricing in one part of the world, I want to make sure that price doesn’t flow into other parts of the world and mess up my distribution models,” he says.

The point is: more often than not people are not averse to spending money on things they see value in. Give them a good product at an appropriate price and they will more likely than not buy it. Sitting in the corner with an outdated business model and yelling "OH NOESSS PIRATES" will not make you any money, and won't fix the problem.

[TeeCakes]

And TeeCakes, the SDF six shooters are not needed here. The guy from Sony is pissed that the current business climate doesn't take kindly to outmoded distribution platforms, just like movie execs blamed VHS, DVD burners, and music execs blamed tapes for below expected growth. In reality, dips in profits usually have more to do with a poor quality product, but who really wants to take responsibility for their own failures where its easier to blame the plebs?

I appreciate and agree, Virt. But perhaps you should read the last few paragraphs of my comment since I literally came to this exact same conclusion. Admittedly, opening up with my pro-Sony Greatest Hits probably wasn't the best way to get people to read my entire comment! :cool:

The point is: more often than not people are not averse to spending money on things they see value in. Give them a good product at an appropriate price and they will more likely than not buy it. Sitting in the corner with an outdated business model and yelling "OH NOESSS PIRATES" will not make you any money, and won't fix the problem.

Again, IAWTC. The piracy of films shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. Instead it's more accurate to say that it represents a large demand for digital supply methods. Streaming is a silly idea, since piracy proves that people would rather just download the entire film and watch it like they do a DVD/VHS whenever they want, whether they're connected to the internet or not.

But since DVDs, Blu-ray, and theater tickets are financially-backed by the same studios that make movies they'd rather berate their customers than take their money if giving into high demand makes their investments obsolete.

[Evil Avatar]

The point is: more often than not people are not averse to spending money on things they see value in. Give them a good product at an appropriate price and they will more likely than not buy it. Sitting in the corner with an outdated business model and yelling "OH NOESSS PIRATES" will not make you any money, and won't fix the problem.

Um... that quote tells me that Gabe missed something important. One of the main reasons that PC gamers pirate so much software is BECAUSE they had to pay big bucks to enter the gaming marketplace. After you spend $1500+ on a new PC then you don't have a ton of free cash left for the games.

He is right, those people were willing to shell out the money for the gaming PC, they just aren't an endless source of revenue. I've got news for him... even Valve games get pirated.

[Virtuoso]

Um... that quote tells me that Gabe missed something important. One of the main reasons that PC gamers pirate so much software is BECAUSE they had to pay big bucks to enter the gaming marketplace. After you spend $1500+ on a new PC then you don't have a ton of free cash left for the games.

He is right, those people were willing to shell out the money for the gaming PC, they just aren't an endless source of revenue. I've got news for him... even Valve games get pirated.

"Endless source of revenue" no, but he does demonstrate that people who drop 1500-3000 on a gaming PC have some measure of disposable income. And yeah, of course Valve games get pirated like everyone else's - but I would bet that they have a considerably lower rate of piracy than, say, Spore did.

[drakkarim]

i think his big problem is that people wants things 'now', but it doesn't seem to be including the stuff he's selling.

that and the fact that he preferred things the way they used to be, where the big boys controlled what we wanted and when we got to have it.

i think this blurb is coming from him just seeing his cd sales numbers, and how that cow is drying up about as fast as umd sales.

[bjornbarspingvinen]

What he was really saying is that he hates the mentally that has been lagging along with the internet "revolution", meaning that many people don´t think illegal downloading is stealing, and it´s "safe" to lurk behind a computer stealing things of the net.

I hate cheap fkks

[gojira]

It is my belief that the internet is not a man-made creation at all, but rather a natural resource that we simply tap into and utilize to our own end. I picture it like the Lifestream from Final Fantasy 7, but filled with porn. The internet is, in a sense, God.

I think it's more like a Voodun god, the Loa, that we ride for a while it brings us visions of far away places, and by placating it with obscure rituals we can sometimes receive gifts, but in the end it eats your soul.

With porn.

[CptTripps]

This guy offends me and can suck my balls. I have purchased every movie, game, software I own. Way to lump the rest of the world in with whatever % of people who pirate software/media.

[Squido]

There is a convergence of two or three situations at work here. First is the notion of consumer convenience. The second is revenue streams for content creators. Third is the improvement in media recording and playback.

From a creators perspective the internet is eating the status quo. Content makers had invested heavily in their current distribution and marketing systems. Their system worked in a world of analog distribution. Whether it was Music, TV, or Movies, each had their own eco system, and they all worked pretty well. You could listen to your records at home, you could watch your TV at home, but if you wanted the best visual and auditory expeirence you needed to go to the movies. And to some extent if you wanted the most special experience of all, you needed to go to a live action play!

I suspect that conglomerate companies were the people who opened the pandora's box of consumer convenience. Radio was nice but consumers wanted MORE control over what they listened to, when they listened to it, and where they listened to it. This convergence began with magnetic tape. Magnetic tape gave us the ability to listen to records in cars instead of our houses. Magnetic tape allowed us to remix what songs we listened to and in what order. If you had a large enough reel to reel, it allowed you to 'compress' your record collection into something more convenient.

People felt like 'their' music was ubiquitous as long as they wanted to carry around 10 or so Maxell mix tapes they made for themselves. Movies which were once only the domain of movie houses were breaking into alternate revenue streams as well. TV screens were already getting bigger and VCRs made it possible for you to enjoy a movie again without having to wait for a theater to bring it back into rotation.

Revenue streams were still largely intact at this point but piracy was rampant. Whether it was 'authentic' copies in Asian countries or mix tapes made by entreprenurial young men in high school, Piracy was just about who a person knew and how they consumed their media.

The only thing technology has done since then is made it EASIER to do the things that people have always been doing. Listening, sharing, and customizing media that they consider to be their own. The sharing part in particular became easier with the advent of LANs and WANs. LANs made it easier for people to listen to each other's music. And if you were so inclined, you just copied their library. Hard drives could take it. Napster(then) and it's ilk (then) took it to the illogical extreme with WANs. The added convenience just increased the number of people who pirated. It was easier for them to copy someone elses library. It probably contained a lot of music they had once owned. They rationalized the extra content as potentially inspiring them to buy new content. Or they could find small rarieties that no production house wants to spend the time on necessary to make such a recording live up toi the standards of a name brand label.

The exact same thing happened to the TV/Movie industry. It's just taken longer for the recording process and storage to catch up to the same level of ease it's been for years with Audio only. Supposedly the average TV size will be 60" in 2015. Right now my meager online research indicates that sets under 30" make up less than 10% of all new sets sold. With home surround and big screens, the people who can actually afford to spend $60-80 to take a family of 4 to see a movie usually prefer to watch the movie 4 months later in their own home.

People don't want it 'NOW'. People want 'it' where ever they are, when ever they want 'it'. Companies gave the people a taste of that convenience when it suited the comapanies needs. Now that it's grown beyond their control, they are unhappy that they haven't been able to monetize it efficiently (if at all).

<geek>
All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
</geek>

[blackzc]

We are saturated...people spend way to much money on movies games ect....what fucking more do they want? Just let the thieves steal,id say if you want the saturation to continue your gonna have to let the thieves just steal the shit they are not going to buy anyway.

I cant see there being anymore money to be made shoveling the same shit thats been shoveled for 15 years....thank god Nintendo is stepping up.