Dissecting the digital utopia.
some tech thing is a new weekly roundup of tech-related stories you might have missed or even wished you missed. Co-hosted by David Newhoff and Sandy Davis. Take a listen and let me/us know what you think.
In this episode: Super Bowl stories: SodaStream & GoldieBlox; Strawbees, Prince sues fans, Bitcoin regulation
I was recently on the lot at Warner Brothers in Burbank, and the movie studio has indeed undergone some major changes in response to threats from the Internet industry. What used to be a marketing department has been transformed into a cubicle farm now known on the QT as the Department for Breaking the Internet. Similarly, the building where writers once banged out classic screenplays is now the Division for Chilling Free Speech. And while there is only speculation that file sharers are being abducted and tortured, I was pretty sure I heard screams when a door swung open on a soundstage claiming to be home to the Ellen DeGeneres Show.
Meanwhile, back in reality . . .
You know how we still see headlines that tell us Hollywood and the Government are in cahoots to . . . (insert violation of civil liberty here)? Well, you can feel secure calling bullshit on that premise at least insofar as lobbying dollars go because Hollywood is a penny-ante player in that game. Despite the persistent notion that the almighty MPAA wields some unlimited lobbying budget with which it manhandles Washington, here’s the facts, Jack: According to this report from Consumer Watchdog, 10 major tech firms spent $61.5 million on lobbying in 2013 with Google (who else?) leading that crowd with its own $14.06 million. By contrast, the MPAA, whose budget comes from combined contributions from the major media companies, spent a little under $2.2 million in 2013 according to the Lobbying Disclosure site hosted by the US House of Representatives. That’s a 30:1 ratio for the 10 firms v the MPAA, or a 7:1 ratio looking just at Google v the MPAA.
So, sure we can have a big ol’ national palaver about the influence of money in politics, but anyone who thinks big tech is the David to the media industry’s Goliath is just a sucker. Meanwhile, like them or not, what major motion picture studios spend their money on is film and television production. Protecting IP and fighting piracy is a pain the ass and an expense to protect investments. By contrast, the lobbying dollars spent by many of these technology companies are an investment in rewriting policy — copyrights, patents, privacy, etc. — that could have a dramatic effect on their future growth. This is one reason we’re not likely to see the MPAA ever compete on a level, lobbying playing field, even if they had the financial resources to do so. At the same time, the major studios and networks combined employ more Americans than Google, and even all those jobs still don’t represent the majority of people who work in the motion picture industry. So, really the whole narrative of Silicon Valley as underdog is multi-dimensionally false as well as insulting.
I am dying to hear the rationale for this one. According to several stories this morning, Quentin Tarantino is suing Gawker for leaking and promoting access to the full screenplay for a feature in late-stage development called The Hateful Eight. According to the LA Times, the director says he’s depressed over the leak and is shelving the production, but meanwhile, he’s suing Gawker for copyright infringement. The first report I read stated that a rumor was circulating that the whole kerfuffle is a publicity stunt by Tarantino, but I doubt it; and I certainly hope not. Tarantino doesn’t need a publicity stunt. His films, like them or not, are provocative enough to be their own publicity stunts.
There are times when copyright cases contain shades of gray, but this isn’t one of them. What possible social justification can anyone offer for leaking the screenplay of a motion picture in development? If you think you have an answer to that, find someone to administer a dope slap because your ego is eating the rest of your psyche. Assuming there’s nothing more to this story, what Gawker is doing is an outright hijacking of a process that represents many hours and many dollars worth of stranded investment. What journalist does that absent any actual news that serves the public? Have we become so debauched that we think we have a right to read an author’s work mid-process, let alone a component of a multi-million-dollar product in development? Tarantino should not only sue Gawker, but the responsible parties should have to clean his house without pay for six months.
It is apt that this story breaks this morning, when the House Judiciary Committee readies to hold another round of hearings on copyright review. Today will be focused on the subject of fair use, and we will undoubtedly hear testimony from parties arguing to expand fair use, despite the fact that the U.S. already has the most liberal application of the principle among countries who uphold copyright. Regardless, while there may be nuance to consider in this regard, this Tarantino case serves as a timely example of the fact that certain website owners would strain the legal foundation of fair use until the only part left is the use. This is what happens when people grow accustomed to making money for doing nothing: they become self-righteous about exploiting people who actually work for a living.
I don’t love every film Quentin Tarantino produces, but his voice certainly makes its presence known in the chorus of American cinema; and the world would be duller without him. Gawker? Really? It could disappear tomorrow, and what? Where would we ever find another team of lazy-ass gossip-mongers? Check under the nearest rock.