One of the main driving points in the entertainment industry’s support of SOPA and its various incarnations has been their claim that, allegedly, piracy is gutting the entertainment industry. To hear them, along with the government proponents aligned with them, describe the ordeal conjures up an entertainment industry as some Saint Sebastian of Hollywood, bound and beaten by the ruthless and rampant piracy of the Internet that has unforgivingly robbed them blind. It would be a pretty compelling defense against piracy, and it was obviously enough to convince at least some within the ranks of the U.S. government to support their cause.

Like I said, though, it would be a compelling defense. If it were true.

A study commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association and conducted by Michael Masnick, CEO of Floor 64, investigated the economy of the entertainment industry over the past decade and found claims of plunging profits due to piracy to be a crude fabrication. Contrary to the entertainment industry’s claims of lost profits, Masnick postulated that we may actually be “living in a true Renaissance era for content.”

He continued in the report, “More money is being spent overall. Households are spending more on entertainment. And a lot more works are being created.”

Indeed, some of the figures put together by the report create a condemning rebuttal against any claim by the entertainment industry that they’re bleeding money:

Given this sample of the results (and there’s a lot more where those came from), it would appear the old adage that the entertainment industry is “recession-proof” would maintain its truth today. Masnick concurred this point in the report and wrote, “For an industry that claims to be plagued by piracy, this steadfast level of growth during the Great Recession appears to justify the boastful statements of being recession proof.”

So if the megapowers of the entertainment industry are not bleeding money (due to their favorite boogie man, Internet piracy) but are actually rolling deep in the dough, then what are they so angry at the Internet for? I don’t see what they could possibly hope to gain from the ratification of a SOPA-like bill. It’s not like they actually care about the integrity of their work – just look at the last two decades of film in the United States. 95% of their content has been complete sir-reverence, and the past few years seem to have been dominated exclusively by remakes, sequels, and driveling offerings so bland in their creativity that they have to use books and graphic novels as their personaizedl storyboards.

Masnick writes that, for the entertainment industry, “the evidence points to a very optimistic future” but that “it feels like much of the debate about copyright law over the past few decades has been based on claims about the state of an industry that simply don’t match up to reality.” Seriously, though, that’s a good point – why is the MPAA so willfully divorced from reality that they’re trying to convince everybody the entertainment industry is being fleeced when they’re really doing better off than probably any other industry in the United States (or world, for that matter) today? It’s like they’re one of those poor hoarders you see on The Learning Channel, hopelessly squirreling away all their copyrights for a purpose even they themselves can’t quite understand.

I just don’t get it. Why can’t the MPAA and other leaders of the entertainment industry embrace the public’s use of their material? It’s not as if Hollywood is really hurting for money and so, if this study from Masnick and CCIA ever really breaches the surface of the mainstream, it’ll be interesting to watch if the entertainment industry sticks to their blanks-firing pistols or if they’ll resort to another fabricated excuse to justify their greed.

We just want to participate in the culture we live in, MPAA – a culture that you have helped foster around us. For the most part, you’ve helped create a rather crummy culture, but still, we’re here to play around in it and you get to stay rich. Everybody wins. So why does that make you so mad?

Now Wheaton is calling MPAA boss and former Senator Chris Dodd a liar. He says that jobs aren’t being lost because of piracy, but the bad business and culture of Hollywood itself. On his tumblr, he reacted to the news that Dodd threatened congressmen over their opposition to SOPA and PIPA.

Wow. Chris Dodd is not only an asshole, he’s a stupid, tone deaf asshole. And so are all the asshole Democrats who are on the wrong side of this issue because they want money from Hollywood. Guess what, Democrats? You’re finally starting to reclaim the populist mantle that could help you win back congress and keep the White House. You may want to, you know, get on the right side of public opinion you idiots.

He then clarifies his position on piracy and its effects on his job:

I have lost more money to creative accounting, and American workers have lost more jobs to runaway production, than anything associated with what the MPAA calls piracy. Chris Dodd is lying about piracy costing us jobs. Hollywood’s refusal to adapt to changing times is what’s costing the studios money. That’s it.

It’s nice to see more actors speaking out against Hollywood’s corrupt practices and their buying out of senators. Maybe Wheaton and Wales can form an alliance to get Dodd fired.

In another recent interview with Alec Shankman, the CEO of Hollywood interactive community GotCast, he told us that technology and the entertainment industry were “merging quickly.” Sites such as Hulu, Netflix, and, of course, YouTube are creating many new opportunities for both known talent and budding talent.

While there are many opportunities, there are also challenges in bringing these two industries together. After being an agent for several years, Shankman realized that there was a gap in connecting fresh talent to agents, producers, and casting directors. He and his business partner Wil Schroter took this problem and developed a platform for bridging this gap called GotCast.com.

“We’re actually merging the way talent is discovered and the way that talent finds work with technology,” said Shankman.

They wanted to create options beyond American Idol, The Voice, and other talent oriented shows.

He went on to explain that the service has both a free and premium model and anyone that wants can sign up. The service also has a social-based component called MediaBlastr that allows family and friends to vote for their loved ones on various social sites. Brands such as MySpace, Dove, and Sony Playstation have created contests that have gone viral through this element.

“It’s really difficult for a brand to get talent to, or anybody for that matter, to speak about the brand across Facebook and Twitter without getting paid for it or without having a really specific reason,” Shankman said.

“But, in this case, when you’re saying, ‘Hey, I wanna be the new face of Dove, come vote for me,’ and you’re posting it on Twitter and Facebook and Google+, and then your friends go to vote for you and they sign up and they post the same thing, it gets really viral really quickly; and it’s incredible for brands,” he added.

The other challenge with this intersection of technology and entertainment is monetization. The entertainment industry is accustomed to having tried and true business models, but this new space is different. Shankman told us that GotCast, and the others that are embracing the two, are still experimenting with revenue models.

“Technology is growing like crazy everyday, so it’s gonna be in the entertainment space whether entertainment’s ready or not,” he said.

Despite these challenges, Shankman said that Hollywood was motivated to integrate technology because it didn’t want to “miss the boat” like the recording industry did.

The Walt Disney Co. was reported to have refused calls made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein to join in a discussion on SOPA and PIPA with members of Silicon Valley. Sen. Feinstein was attempting to broker a truce between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, both powerful constituents in her state.

The Huffington Post is reporting that the Senator called up both Hollywood and Silicon Valley to broker a compromise on PIPA and address concerns that the tech sector had with the bill.

Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger declined the invitation on behalf of Hollywood. “Hollywood did not feel that a meeting with Silicon Valley would be productive at this time,” a spokesperson said.

Unfortunately, the meeting took place with only tech companies present. Senate Democratic aides tell The Huffington Post that Sen. Feinstein is now working to amend PIPA.

To make matters worse, there is no common ground between the two sectors when it comes to these bills. As the blackout yesterday confirmed, the tech sector is completely against the bills and want them dead. This echoes what a senior Senate aide told The Huffington Post when they said that the tech sector refuses to specify precise changes to PIPA so the bill would get killed outright.

It seems that the only party that actually wants to change the bills are the senators and representatives working on PIPA and SOPA respectively. The content producers in Hollywood wants to push them through and the tech sector wants them to die. There is no compromise there and Washington is attempting to broker one. Doing so would allow them to stay on good terms with both Hollywood and the tech sector, both of which are powerful lobbying allies in Washington.

It remains to be seen if there will be any compromise on these bills, but it’s not looking good. Considering how many members of Congress dropped their support yesterday during the blackout, it’s looking more like Silicon Valley is going to get its way.

The Financial Times is reporting that Abduction, the newest film from Lionsgate, will be available day-and-date on Facebook with the DVD release today. This is the first time that a film has been on the social networking site the same day as the DVD release.

The film will be available for $3.99 for a 48-hour Facebook rental. Lionsgate will also offer an exclusive interview with the film’s star.

A cool feature that comes along with this news is the ability to write notes about the film while watching it. You can them post them on the social network for your friend’s to see while they are watching the film. Of course, this could be exploited to reveal major spoilers before they happen to ruin the film for your friends.

The film studio decided to go with Facebook because they have confidence the social networking giant can help them generate online video rentals in the crucial early weeks of a home video release. It will also help them gather personal information on film aficionados that can be used for further marketing vehicles.

Anne Parducci, Executive VP of Marketing at Lionsgate, told the Financial Times that this will give them a direct contact to their fans that their Facebook page didn’t provide.

About 14 studios have previously offered released movies for rental on Facebook since Warner Bros. offered The Dark Knight on the service, according to the Financial Times.

Warner Bros, Universal, Fox and Sony will launch the service under the collective brand “Home Premiere.”  Viewers will be charged $29.99 for a 2-3 rental, depending on the distributor.  The movies offered will be films that are two months out of the theaters.  This means that they will be films not yet released onto DVD and Blu-Ray.

According to Variety, DirecTV will be the first to launch “Home Premiere” to its 20 million customers, to be followed by Comcast and other cable providers at an unknown time.

Will people pay this incredibly high price tag for a film that they don’t get to keep?  People that missed the initial theater run of some buzzed about movies might value the experience.  Some folks might think the price is worth it to avoid waiting for the films on HBO or Redbox.  But with many DVDs releasing three months after closing in theaters, is a month of waiting really worth $30?

The price is hard to justify for a single viewer or even a couple, but maybe not for larger families.  The cost of a night out at the megaplex could easily eclipse $30, and that is a fact that the studios are banking on.  Families could avoid the hassle of leaving their homes and pay an equivalent or possibly even cheaper price for the same entertainment.

The National Association of Theater Owners is not too thrilled about the service, saying in a statement:

“These plans fundamentally alter the economic relationship between exhibitors, filmmakers and producers, and the studios taking part in this misguided venture.  Studios risk accelerating the already intense need to maximize revenues on every screen opening weekend and driving out films that need time to develop — like many of the recent Academy Award-nominated pictures. They risk exacerbating the scourge of movie theft by delivering a pristine, high definition, digital copy to pirates months earlier than they had previously been available.”

Ah yes, then there is the piracy issue.

Sources told Variety that the service should debut sometime in April.  The Adam Sandler comedy “Just Go With It” and the Liam Neeson thriller “Unknown” are said to be two of the early offerings.

Netflix’s popularity is at an all time high, and since studios like Warner Bros and Fox have been hesitant to jump on the wagon, the must feel the need to offer something new to compete.  Does “Home Premiere” have the chance to succeed?  Tell us what you think.

What makes this story splash, however, are the specifics regarding what series they plan to distribute.  Far from some indie production that might rest comfortably on the bottom of your instant queue, Netflix’s foray into original programming looks to be with “House of Cards,” based on the early 90′s British miniseries of the same name.  The series would be directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, The Social Network) in his first Television series (although he is familiar with music video).  The series would star Kevin Spacey (American Beauty, everything else).

This is a big-budget, high name-recognition type of production, and would most likely attract a very large audience.  The impact of Netflix offering instant original content to your TV or computer could be staggering.  Sure, it follows the model that made HBO a success:  Start by working as a screener of other people’s films, and slowly start producing original content (Sopranos, Six Feet Under).  But the difference with Netflix involves pricing and scheduling.  A very cheap Netflix plan of around $8 per  month gives you access to all of their streaming instant content.  I’m quite sure I pay more for HBO and Showtime.  Netflix also gives me the ability to watch any of their instant content whenever I want.  Not all HBO and Showtime content is available at all times.

Some estimate that a show like “House of Cards” could run in the 4 – 6 million dollar range, and with the report that Netflix has signed on for a two season, 26 episode run it looks as though this could be an expensive proposition for the company.  Netflix could probably play it safe and stick to what it does (very well), but with Amazon offering more and more streaming content and even Facebook getting into the market, playing it safe could end up being a risky move.

According to the article

In addition to being a staple for rapid-fire communication among technophiles and a networking tool for tech-savvy companies, Twitter is swiftly being adopted by celebrities who see it as a way to give the public a controlled peephole into their otherwise highly private lives.

Examples that have been seen are Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore (or Mrs. Kutcher as she is known on Twitter). While an innocent example, just the idea of Ms. Moore going the Mrs. Kutcher route which is not her public persona is a glimpse into what might be causing publicists all around Hollywood to cringe and maybe even pray that their clients won’t do this at all. The speed of a ‘get to know me’ statement to ‘start the spin control!’ can be a split second.

Other celebs that have been taking advantage of Twitter include Shaquille O’Neal and Lance Armstrong. Armstrong even used Twitter to help Sacramento police track down a bike that had been stolen from him. He let his followers know about the incident and sent them a picture of the bike and a week later it was recovered.

While that is the fun and productive side there is the potential for who knows what. Josh Bernoff, the author of Groundswell says

“It’s not that surprising celebrities are making the leap from blogs to using Twitter,” Mr. Bernoff said. It also doesn’t either hurt that celebrities tend to thrive on attention, he said.

Where the infiltration of celebrities on a platform such as Twitter gets interesting, he said, is what happens when celebrities sidestep their publicists and begin communicating directly with fans. “Are we going to find out that Angelina Jolie isn’t a good writer?” Mr. Bernoff mused. It’s a whole “new level of engagement,” he said.

So let’s imagine what might happen. What handles would some of these folks try to use? If @ARod is not available for Alex Rodriguez would he go with @Aroid (both are taken by the way)? Could a tweet look like ‘@AlexRodriguez Wow. These press guys want to know the truth. What up with that?’ Let’s put our Pilgrim imaginations to work and tell us what you envision might be seen in the Twitterverse in the near future from the think tank of great ideas that is the world of celebrity.

Comments

Defamer’s writers are moving on, and the column is being taken over by Gawker’s Richard Lawson and a yet to be hired reporter, while being supervised by managing editor Gabriel Snyder. Denton announced the changes yesterday afternoon, just in time to get it switched over before the Oscars (of which there is plenty of coverage of on Defamer).

"Gawker now draws more than 3m visitors a month — four times the audience it had in 2007," writes Denton on his blog. "More than three-quarters of Gawker’s readership is from outside New York. The inclusion of Defamer’s Hollywood gossip — following an expansion of political coverage last year and the incorporation of Valleywag — reflects Gawker’s evolution into a national gossip site."

Denton told the Wall Street Journal that he is hoping to get a nice boost to Gawker’s traffic by rolling Defamer into the site, just as he did with Valleywag last year. If nothing else, the timing was a good choice for the move – the biggest Hollywood gossip day of the year.

Speaking of the Oscars, YouTube and Google Book Search are both highlighting Academy Award content. You can see parodies and books that some of the films were adapted from.

Studios want to distribute clips of old TV shows and movies without actors’ permission and pay them a flat fee instead of paying each actor individually. The actors union is against the measure.

"What they’re asking us to do is erase 50 years of our customs and practice," SAG President Alan Rosenberg, told Reuters.

According to comScore, 134 million U.S. Internet users view online videos each month, with YouTube bringing in 80 million unique visitors monthly.

The SAG contract rules state that each actor in a clip must receive the "day-player" minimum of $759, even if the clip is only a few seconds in length. SAG maintains that actors are afraid of losing control of their images, particularly when advertising and video mash-ups are involved.

"We’re willing to help them build this new business, but they don’t take our concerns seriously," Rosenberg said.

The studios reason that actors’ work is currently widely exploited without consent or compensation due to Internet piracy. The studios argue that actors can only benefit from clips licensed and distributed by the industry.

The clips disagreement is an issue unique to actors and was not covered in contracts settled earlier this year with directors and striking screenwriters.

Negotiations between the studios and SAG are scheduled to start again at the end of this month. The current contract covers 120,000 film and TV actors and ends June 30.