- “More than a decade of hard lobbying by two powerful trade groups, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has convinced U.S. lawmakers and law enforcement officials that it’s worth using America’s muscle to protect movie and music interests abroad. Now, lawmakers are calling the trade groups, asking what else Congress and the government can do for the entertainment industry.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402071.html
Allow me to repeat that. It is worth using America’s muscle to protect movie and music interests abroad.
Allow me to clarify that. By “America’s muscle”, we cannot presume anything other than “American military power”, at best used as a threat, and at worst used to murder people. Taking lives over movies and music.
How hilarious is that? It’s quite hilarious, lemme tell ya.
Right up until they start dropping nukes over my head. After all, I committed the mortal sin of being in the same country as some guy who has an unhealthy obsession with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, 24, or whatever else there is (or was) the so called entertainment industry spews out these days. (Speaking of that, this gives a kind of Romanesque, Gladiatorish meaning to the word entertainment, doesn’t it?)
I’ve kind of felt that this whole thing has been steadily ascending toward war. War, over movies. What’s left of us in the future won’t know whether to laugh or cry when they look at the dumb shit being produced today and compare it to the devastation that will befall us over that same, dumb, mass-produced shit.
Friday, 16. June 2006
“Allow me to clarify that. By “America’s muscle”, we cannot presume anything other than “American military power”, at best used as a threat, and at worst used to murder people. Taking lives over movies and music.”
Heh, Kalle, you’re a generally intelligent person, but do you really think the U.S. would attack countries over this? Military action is not the only possibility in this instance. It’s not an uncommon practice for countries to try to manipulate trade markets for perceive wrongdoings (Cuba being the most extreme example of this). I assume, in this case, they will try to have foreigners extradited for illegally downloading music. Which means they are going to try to set international law to make it so that the Internet is considered U.S. territory (I read an article about this, already). That’s farcical in itself, so that probably won’t happen. However, through diplomacy, the U.S. government could convince some contries to try more people for copyright violations using those countries’ own laws.
Friday, 16. June 2006
Hey Steve, I didn’t know you read this blog.
See, what gets me the most about this whole thing is that sentence itself. It’s the utter lack of diplomacy in saying in media that the world can see “So we’ve decided to use some of our MUSCLE to make sure the world AGREES with us.”
What if China had said something like that about what the US is doing? “Yeah, we’ve decided to use some muscle now against them darn Americans for being such silly folks.” How would YOU interpret a statement like that, other than “Time to hide!” or, since America is a military power (au contraire to Sweden) “Time to arm myself!”?
That’s my foremost issue, and yes, I believe that this will steadily ascend into something far worse than it already is. It may sound like a joke now, but man, money rules. And a lot of money is perceived to be lost in this all.
Friday, 16. June 2006
Muscle is a colloquialism that can refer to either physical power (military) or influential power (based on manipulation or diplomacy). Just because a country has a strong military doesn’t mean the word loses its ambiguity.
And, seriously, I repeat, do you think the U.S. would be stupid enough to use their military in a matter like this? There’d be retaliation from every major military power over something so infantile. This isn’t something trivial like cotton, diamonds or oil where there are serious underlying issues. Thinking this will degenerate into war is just paranoia. And I say this as someone who saw Iraq coming.
Friday, 16. June 2006
Actually, I’d say it does tend to lose its ambiguity when a country has a strong military. I think that is kind of the point as well. If Finland had said something similar I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow, knowing that since they do not even possess the means to go out on a world domination spree, it is clear what they mean.
In this case, though, it isn’t clear. And to answer your question: no, in all honesty, I don’t. What I do think is that the U.S. government will try to convince other countries into agreeing, and that it will fail. I believe that it will attempt to find other ways of getting its point across, and these, too, will fail. I believe this will ultimately have detrimental effects on the relations the countries in question. I also I believe that Bush wants war, and I believe he will grab any chance at making war that he can think of. I don’t know why anyone would want that, but that is the general feeling I get.
Why would the U.S. government suddenly decide to cater to the music and movie industry?
Why would the U.S. government be prepared to, as they put it, “use America’s muscle” in a matter like this?
Why would any country risk harming their international relations over such a thing as movies and music, by publicly declaring that they will “bully you into agreeing with them”. What else would using America’s muscle mean, if not an open promise of forcing others to agree via American power, be that military or otherwise.
As you say, there is both physical power and influential power, and what has been said is that, at least influentially, America’s government is going to force other countries into agreement.
Or perhaps you’re right, and I’m being paranoid. Perhaps “America’s muscle” in this case simply means the movies and music that the world is stealing from the U.S. are not going to be exported to the countries in question, like Sweden and Russia. But what will that do? It will do two things:
1. It will nullify the income the U.S. entertainment industry makes in those countries, which, I might add, is a big loss, despite the piracy.
2. The movies and music will still make it in via illegal means.
Stopping the export on wheat is one thing. Stopping the export on electronic media is a whole different matter.
Making the internet “U.S. territory” is an interesting thought, though. That might actually work. But what will happen when the freedom is lost? What will the countries that are excluded from using the internet do? They will create their own internet, one that is not owned by any one country. Presuming they survive the financial crisis that will come from losing such an important aspect of today’s business making, that is.
Friday, 16. June 2006
Bush is a lame duck president. He can’t even convince republicans in Congress to support his policies anymore and he doesn’t have a public approval rating that would force republicans into agreeance. Democrats will likely win the House this November because it’s Bush’s party and also because people no longer view the republican party as one of family values and ethics. And the only reason the U.S. isn’t pulling out of Iraq is because Congress believes it would cause Iraq to fall immediately into a civil war, and I’m sure it would. Continuing the occupation would at least delay it and give it a very small chance of being averted.
Personally, I don’t see how other countries would have a reason to say no to the U.S. regarding its music and movie industries, especially if these countries have their own laws against piracy, and almost every western country does. What the U.S. will try to do is convince trade agencies in these countries to push foreign labels and production companies to encourage their governments to enforce anti-piracy laws more than they have in the past, particularly when it comes to piracy done over the Internet. And, considering there’s money to be made in importing music, I highly doubt these companies would say no, out of fear for losing importing rights to other companies.
Also, like I said, this is not about a drug, textile or resource. This is recorded entertainment, which doesn’t have the same political attachments as things like opium (imperialism), cotton (slavery) and oil (terrorism and religious and political differences). And it’s not a conflict over land.
If there was something else underlying recorded entertainment, I’d agree with you. But there is currently no major underlying political factor. The U.S. has been imperialistic in recent years, but not in the countries the recording industry does most of its business with. And the countries it does do business with are too powerful to mess with (the U.S. likely doesn’t want the European Union against it entirely, right now). There are a lot of ways to compromise and increase profits between the companies in these countries. And companies won’t say no to that possibility. If they do, they’re a bunch of idiots.
I don’t think the U.S. will win “ownership” of the Internet. U.S. telecommunications companies will push for it, but U.S. citizens will reject it harshly. People want broad information on the Internet, not restricted information. It’s why there’s a huge grass roots compaign for “Net Neutrality.” There would be something similar if the U.S. tried to claim ownership of the Internet. Also, there are U.S. companies that do business between countries on the Internet. They wouldn’t support it. So I don’t think it will work, even though the U.S. companies technically own most of the storage and means of communication.
Friday, 16. June 2006
I think I lost what I just wrote. I’ll re-write it later.
Saturday, 17. June 2006
Well, to add my two bits - I didn’t interpret ‘American Muscle’ as meaning military power. I assumed they meant influence. The U.S. has a very far reaching arm throughout the world, nearly scary in the amount of power we have. The U.S. forming a trade agreement with a country can literally save that country from poverty and bring it up in the world. At the same time, revoking trade can have a severely damaging effect. While in that, I refer to all trade, the U.S. could very easily refuse to export music to countries that it believes are not properly enforcing the copyright laws, and instead offer that export to another country. As ya’ll have already said, most countries have some sort of laws in place regarding pirating - so the U.S. would have a very strong foundation to stand on to refuse them or demand that they show a certain amount of progress in a period of years in order to retain trade of entertainment products. And seriously, while the point was made that no country should want to risk foreign relations over something like this… do you truly think that applies to the U.S.? The U.S. is a world leader, and it knows it. Consider how many countries fought against us going to Iraq, and how little impact that actually had on the U.S. in regard to power. Some day, it may catch up with us, but for now, the U.S. is rather justifiably confident in doing as it pleases.
~Nicole
Saturday, 17. June 2006
I don’t know if you’ve heard about the Pirate Party, but it’s a new political party in Sweden, aiming to legalize downloading of music/movies (it actually has 3 main points it pushes for, but that’s probably the most controversial one). And it’s gaining votes. Fast. Thus I can see how other countries would have a reason to say no to the U.S. Similar parties have arisen in e.g. Italy.
In fact, such a political movement has been started in the United States as well, though I’m less sure it’ll succeed than I am the European counterparts.
I don’t really have a good answer for the rest of the things you brought up.
I still have a feeling that this is the beginning of something terrible, and that it will be an excuse for something that will shake the world, but only time will tell if I’m right.
Saturday, 17. June 2006
If the U.S. refused to export music to a country then the music sales in that country would drop to 0 for American music. The problem with that statement is that if people’s only option is downloading music/movies illegally off the net, then they will do so, and NOT feel guilty about it, as opposed to doing so and knowing they “should” go and buy those movies/that music to support the artist. Banning export of music/movies to a country would only effectively turn that country into one big pirate. ARr.
And it wouldn’t only have a short-term effect, either. Those who adamantly refuse to pirate music or movies would look for alternatives. Movies and music from countries other than the United States would flourish in the country in question. Sales would skyrocket for those countries because while people do have a taste (which guides their purchases, somewhat) they are also controlled by the selection offered.
As for laws against piracy, I again make note of the Pirate Party which aims to legalize downloading of music and movies for personal use.
> And seriously, while the point was made that no country should want to risk foreign relations over something like this… do you truly think that applies to the U.S.?
Yeah, I think it does. As Steve said earlier, the U.S. may be the top of the food chain but only for as long as it behaves somewhat. If the U.S. turned into Nazi-Germany, the rest of the world would band together quickly enough.
Sunday, 18. June 2006
Companies selling imported music stand to suffer losses if they lose their license to sell imported music, regardless of whether or not there is a niche party promoting legalized piracy. For example, MCA could refuse to allow any company in Sweden to import the music of bands signed to them if they do not take a hardline stance on piracy.
Now, look at it from a country’s standpoint. Even if a lot of the music is pirated, your companies stand to make some profit based on import mark-ups. If companies in your country aren’t allowed to sell imports, however, then you don’t produce any money at all. And no country today would refuse their companies profits, unless they were batshit insane. So they will more than likely succumb to pressure from the RIAA and MPAA.
Sunday, 18. June 2006
As far as the movement in the U.S. goes? Hogwash. There are some fanatic people that support piracy wholeheartedly and refuse to buy “art,” but polls repeatedly show that the majority considers piracy illegal.
However, a majorty of people *are* angry at the RIAA and MPAA for how zealous they have been about their crusade against *individual* downloaders (rather than uploaders).
Sunday, 18. June 2006
I agree with you, but I also know that about 1 out of 9 Swedes are actively downloading stuff from the net.
However, it is worth noting that at this point, no accurate reports indicate that the music or movie sales have decreased despite the pirating going on. People do buy CD’s and movies despite the fact they download stuff online.
The point, though, that the Pirate Party is making is that it is wrong to declare that 10% of the population is criminal. Instead, they say, resources should be put into promoting movies and music while still allowing people the ability to download stuff online.
If those 10% vote for the Pirate Party, it will get more than 4% of the votes and will effectively be in the government in the election that takes place in September. If that happens, then I can most certainly see how a country might not succumb to the RIAA/MPAA.
Tuesday, 20. June 2006
Like many people I have friends that I do not ideologically agree with. These friends will discuss at ease the possibility of having to use nuclear weapons to defeat an enemy, and will even develop such ideas as a preventative nuclear strike against China before the develop true ICBMs for their warheads, thus destroying their nation at a time when they could only retaliate against the western seaboard, and really only stand a chance at hitting Seattle. These people are not stupid, but they, like many people, approach problems of State by asking the wrong questions. They do not burden themselves with focusing on an end goal, or even answering the question of “why?” or “why bother?”
I suspect that it might not come to military conflict, any time soon but we are a species that has fought over fishing rights, religion, personal insults between monarchs, and for pure financial gain tens of hundreds of times in the past. As the world changes, eventually things like ownership of media might become as important as fishing rights once were. While most people might not consider droping bombs, there will always be people like my friends who do not seem to be able to ask the question, “What good is China to you when it has been nuked?” and their predecessors will not be able to ask, “What good is a market for your music exports when there is no one left alive to buy your music?”