Music Piracy More Common Among the Wealthy

When my wife and I were first starting out in Seattle, we both got retail jobs, and she worked in the Eddie Bauer basement where everything was discounted due to overstocks, minor flaws, or seasonal obsolescence.  Still, she had customers who approached her daily insisting that they were entitled to some further reduction from the marked price because, “See, this seam isn’t straight.” And my wife spent half her day saying things like, “Yes, Ma’am, that’s why it’s been marked down sixty percent and you’re finding it here in bargain basement.”  I theorized then that there are few things more likely to ignite latent greed than a person of means who is already getting a deal.  Charge an egomaniac a thousand dollars for something that’s really worth a few hundred, and he’ll think he’s getting something special; charge him fifty bucks, and he’ll see if he can’t also get your shoes and your watch.

So, it comes as no surprise to me to read Helienne Lindvall’s report on Digital Music News about a study which reveals music piracy to be more prevalent among the wealthy. The theory behind the numbers is that the wealthier segment of society can afford the technologies used to steal and consume media, thus giving lie to the “piracy makes culture available to the underprivileged” claims one hears all the time.  It ought to be obvious to everyone that the “underprivileged” don’t have computers, iPods, and high-speed connections to the internet. And even though music is now readily accessible to people of means at bargain basement prices, they still want musicians’ shoes and watches.

 

GOOGLE-WOOD-LAND? Maybe not.

Okay, I haven’t seen The Internship yet, and it’ll be a small miracle if I find the time.  Certainly if it were not for this blog, I wouldn’t have any interest. But if the sampling of viewer responses on Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, it’s a safe bet that this particular Vaughn/Wilson vehicle has all the appeal of a driverless Porsche.  Consensus seems to be that the hand of Google’s PR machine is more than a little too heavy. This quote is not only exemplary, but is rich with irony, if you know Google’s position on making free the new price for entertainment:

“The Google logo appears so often you shouldn’t have to pay to see this movie. Google should pay you.”

Considering the amount of Google money that is spent in an effort to vilify Hollywood as the command HQ of all that would destroy the internet, it is funny to watch the web behemoth attempt to use motion pictures in this way and to see it backfire, particularly in the same month when CEO Larry Page has been “invited” to discuss new allegations of illegal activity by his company.  The thing is that even with a talented comic duo like Vaughn and Wilson, the audience can recognize when a motion picture is basically just a two-hour commercial.  Even though it isn’t Google’s picture, the PR department still had a level of approval and believed the film would be good for the company. It’s almost as though we could say these technologists just don’t get moviemaking.

New models, huh?

In contemplating two of the film projects I’m currently writing, I told my wife that I’ve been thinking about embracing new models.  With raised eyebrows, she demanded an explanation, and the more I tried to explain “new models” in the sense the internet industry has used the expression since the days of Napster, the more I believe she wished I’d meant hugging attractive, young women.

“Embracing new models” is generalized malarky that’s hard to condense because it refers to an argument constructed as an elaborate house of cards.  Suffice to say it begins with justifying mass online theft of creative works and circles around the the opportunity creative professionals have to bypass the evil “gatkeepers” and sell work directly to consumers.  But two pieces in today’s news caught my attention.   Both from The Wrap, the first and most important story is this one about YouTube’s biggest producing partners coming to realize that their revenue doesn’t exactly coincide with increases in viewership.  I can’t say I was surprised to read, “These partners feel that YouTube’s business approach enriches YouTube without making them nearly as wealthy.”  Presumably, this is simply a failure of the partners to embrace the new model of “you make product, we make money.”

On a somewhat related note, filmmaker Kevin Smith affirms something I have tried to explain to many a deaf ear — that crowd-funding is not a tool for every filmmaker working on any project.  Smith seems to agree that Kickstarter is a great way for a relative unknown to get something started, kinda like the name implies, but it is not the new way to finance motion pictures across the board.  For what it’s worth crowd-funding is often a constituent of the “new model” prophecy, and Kevin Smith is a favorite example of the hucksters who pitch it.