Rupert Murdoch, the aging, embattled, conservative media tycoon has been no stranger to controversy lately, and not the least of it has centered around his new Twitter account. The Fox and Wall Street Journal head has been surprisingly vocal since he joined the microblogging service just a few weeks ago — but none of his outbursts ring as clearly and loudly as recent tweets on the SOPA debate. Much of his vitriol seems aimed at Google, which Murdoch calls a "piracy leader."
The News Corporation CEO tweeted, "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery," and "piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts [sic] around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying," on January 14th, then followed up with justification stating that "film making is risky as hell" and targeting "hurting writers [and] actors." He also points out that when searching for the latest Mission Impossible film on Google, he was able to find a number of sites offering "free links" to the film.
So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten allsoftware creators with piracy, plain thievery. -
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 14, 2012
Just been to google search for mission impossible. Wow, several sites offering free links.I rest my case.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 15, 2012
Of course, Twitter isn't much of a forum to make a clear, cogent argument for or against a topic as far-reaching and broad as piracy, but there does seem to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Google is surfacing based on Murdoch's string of messages. For starters, the concept that providing access to information somehow adds up to collusion is wildly simplistic. As Forbes points out in its piece on the tweets, this isn't the first time Murdoch has misrepresented what Google's search results produce, conflating links back to content as the content itself.
The blame isn't all centered on Google, however. The CEO followed up his piracy rant with a tweet on rising ticket prices (which he claims his company has no control over) and the "offensive" prices for popcorn and soda. Go get 'em, Rupert.
Agree about cinema prices which out of our control - but even more offensive are prices for popcorn and sodas.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) January 15, 2012

There are 233 Comments. Add yours.
Wow. For the first time ever I agree with Rupert Murdoch.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Feels dirty doesn’t it.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend (32) Flag actions
Yeah but it still is right. Google is profiting off of piracy and they are complacent about it too
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google is a search engine. I’d prefer they be as pure a search engine as possible. Leave the fight against piracy to the content owners. Why should a search engine feel compelled to censor the results of a search for something, ANYTHING that is out on the Internet?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend (69) Flag actions
Google is not a search engine. Googles primary business is that of an advertiser. They don’t make money off of search (except the hardware they sell) they make money from advertisements.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They just happen to have a search engine that helps gain popularity to their main business
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Saying “they’re not a search engine” is wrong. Although what I think you mean is that the main purpose of Google is not to find people results, but rather to sell adverts that relate to those results. The service attached to the service is main drive, not the original service.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:49 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
“Google is not a search engine.”
I’ve heard it all. Packing my bags and moving to Florida.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend (42) Flag actions
Did anyone validate how many of those links are scams/malware/spyware and how many are legitimate content sources?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
true, lots of fake content is put out there with malware, spam links, & Trojans. So its not like its open season & plenty of risk if you do decide to chance downloading such content.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 1:38 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Go look up google’s profit break down. Where is “search” in there. They make $$ from ads and business services.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whoa, hold on a minute. You’re paying a subscription for The Verge? Where do I sign up?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:28 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:40 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
and the verge makes money because you pay them? no. they get paid for advertising. Millions of websites online are paid for through advertising, that doesn’t make that their product.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:35 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
So I guess that means ITV isn’t a TV network, I mean I don’t see TV anywhere in their profits, just advertising.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 1:33 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
your going to confuse americans with that one.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t. You’ll hate it here, I promise.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
nods in agreement
God it sucks.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whoa! You sir are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own “facts”.
It is an undeniable fact that Google is perhaps the best “general purpose” search engine the world has ever seen (yet), and Google was clever enough to monetize on the search results.
If the content creators want a censored directory of the content available on the Internet, they are free to create their own search engine that works that way, and make it so good that the world uses it over Google. Alternatively, the content owners could try and create better business models to minimize the incentive to pirate content. The way they’ve chosen is to buy off politicians to put draconian policies in place.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend (32) Flag actions
Saying Google is not a search engine is probably the fastest way to destroy any argument.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend (30) Flag actions
Google is an advertising company
google.com is a search engine
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Oh we’re playing semantic games? Great!
google.com isn’t a search engine, it’s an internet domain.
The google search engine is a lot more than one URL. Google.ca and google.cn are no less part of the google search engine than google.com.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
C’mon man, get serious. That’s like saying CBS is an advertising company not a TV network.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 11:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And how would you generate money for a search engine?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You just failed the internet.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Hilarious. I guess the New York Times isn’t a newspaper either then, genius.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:12 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
What does it matter where Google gets it’s money from? If Google let users pay for every search query instead the argument would be still the same.
They are still a company that has a search engine as their core product. That search engine should be neutral and as a result show everything on the internet. Including illegal content.
Saying that Google is making money for showing illegal content is outrages. They are making money by letting the user find what he/she is looking for on the web (and let advertisers pay for it).
It’s like saying Ford is making kidnapping vehicles because once in a while a Ford van is used for snatching a kid from the streets.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now, I am not sure I agree 100% with what you said. I would say it is legitimate to remove illegal content from search results. But there are some nuances in deciding what is illegal. Usually it takes 12 jurors, and a lot of procedures to come up with a decision. Deciding what is copyrighted is… super easy actually. Everything is copyrighted. You take a photo, make a video, jot some words on a piece of paper – all copyrighted, instantly. What is tricky to decide though is who is the owner, who uploaded something, did he have permission if he is not an owner, is it protected fair use… it is impossible to know what is infringing the copyright and what is not by just observing the content itself. So it is impossible to offload this responsibility to ISPs when they are not in a position to know who is an owner of any copyright.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:44 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Piracy is a real problem that should be addressed. Hosting of illegal content is illegal and should be stopped.
However, I stand by my words. Internet search engines should be an unfiltered and untouched window to the web. Managing content and deciding what the viewer is allowed to see and what not is a very slippery slope that can no longer guarantee a truly open web.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 7:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So, what you are saying is that Yellow pages and all postal services books are just advertisement supports as they have paid adds every page?! And bus shelters are only advertisement supports as well… And if you have a blog with advertisements, that makes you an advertiser as well if I get your point, right?!
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you might want to have a talk with G+’s competitors about that. (twitter)
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
and then?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It goes both ways. Without Google, content creators wouldn’t be able to find the people making illegal copies available. They’d have to put feet on the ground in every alley in China and Russia. Google puts piracy out in the open.
I bet if Google were able to perfectly filter all “illegal” activity from their result, the content creators would come back begging for the “real” results.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No but google shouldnt be proffiting off of them. I don’t care what results they return.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Dude, Google doesn’t go out and individually decide what search results come back from every query.
Attacking them is like saying it’s Chevy’s fault that some criminals use their cars.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:36 PM EST reply Recommend (19) Flag actions
You’re hopelessly deluded, with a shockingly black-and-white view of how the world works.
I think the point you say “I don’t care what […]”, you just conceded defeat. Please leave.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 1:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google profits from the service to let the user find what he/she want on the web.
There is nothing more to it. They don’t decide what’s on the web, they don’t decide what the viewer wants to see and they don’t decide what the viewer shouldn’t see. And that’s the way it should be.
It a user would look up “how to build a bomb” on Google does that mean that google is making money from terrorism? No, of course not.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 7:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So if you take a cab to murder someone the cab driver is profiting off of murder? We should really try to control those cab drivers that just go where you tell them…
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:37 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
Car manufacturers should be lynched! They make the cars bank robbers, terrorists, drunk drivers, and crazy old people who can’t drive use!!!!1
Damn them. Damn the ALL!!
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That argument is valid if, and only if, sans privacy that the bit torrent users would suddenly pay upwards of $10 for a movie tickets or $20 for a blueray. Rather, I suspect, other methods would be found to pay the fair market value for them. Value is for the purchaser to choose, not the sellers.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Actually dimwit, it’s whatever the two agree on.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If there is a free substitute on a torrent site nobody has to agree on anything, and companies can delude themselves to whatever pricing makes them feel fuzzy and warm inside.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:32 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I was referring to the popcorn TBH…
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow really? Its almost like blaming the the telephone companies for not doing enough to prevent potential murders/thieving/[insert bad thing here] because they weren’t tapping phones. Its a ridiculous argument.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:59 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
Or like blaming the Yellow Pages/ Phonebook for providing the addresses of rapists and drug dealers.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then you’re an idiot.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Weird that the guy who owns a media empire that espouses less government and more freedom also wants less freedom on the internet… he’s dictated by money and not by any ideals.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:20 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Are you stupid
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:53 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you stupid
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:54 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
but looking at it from another perspective; if rupert murdoch doesnt like google, google must be doing something right.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Rupert Murdoch is right in supporting SOPA. We should stop piracy on all levels.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 7:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Could u be a more obvious troll?
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 11:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You seriously Can’t complement Him for 1 aspect of the SOPA Bill… As this bill will make it possible to put up the exact same thing that China has which is a firewall to what EVER the government FEELS is “infringing on copyright” This could shutdown sites such as wikipedia for someone saying something like intels copyrighted slogan…. That’s called oppression, not piracy prevention.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No it’s worse than that. It’s not even the govt. that decides what to block. It is the private companies that feel they are being infringed. With no investigation, no oversight, and no court case, they can just push a button and take a site off the internet. It’s appalling.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 11:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t like listening to a rich man complain about prices.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:51 PM EST reply Recommend (50) Flag actions
He’s complaining for the consumers sake not for himself, he doesn’t care if he needs to pay 2 dollars more for a soda. Anyway what’s wrong with rich people? Money is simply a reward for accomplishment, if you create value and create supply for something thats in demand you get money, thats great, certainly better than sitting on your fat ass and complaining about rich/successful people
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I can think of LOTS of people who have money but didn’t attain it in the way you describe.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend (30) Flag actions
That’s the problem. People who make money through honesty and hardwork are becoming harder and harder to find. We need to find and reward those people, because they are the ones who will give back in the end. Probably mores o than they take in.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Like Bill Gates :)
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 9:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s actually not statistically true. I wish I had my source but I don’t. Just because there are people like the Hilton sisters doesn’t mean that the majority of people who make a lot of money just inherited it. Just a product of the media portrayal. They honestly have villanized the concept of being “rich”. People used to be inspired by people who were successful monetarily and now they see a fancy car and think “why does that person need that?”
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 9:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I put this below, and I’m going to continue to find my source, but that’s not really true. Just because you see rich people in the media like the Hilton sisters doesn’t mean that all of them just inherited money. Professional athletes, movie stars, successful business people, and smart investors have all put time and effort into being successful.
I guess simply put,I CAN think of LOTS MORE people who have worked for their money.
Unless of course you are simply thinking that people in, for example the movie industry, don’t work hard or deserve their money. In which case it becomes an argument over what is “create value and create supply for something that’s in demand” (which is what you were referring to).
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not just inherited money, people like Mitt Romney made money sure, but by making anything of value for the world.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 8:37 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It’s not that people resent the rich. I don’t think the majority of people have any issues with earning a lot of money. What people have a problem with is rich people who act like they are in a vacuum, who act like they did it all by themselves without the help of anyone else and fight tooth and nail not to give anything back to the society that made them rich. Murdoch has made his money by stoking political discord, showing shity reality shows, and from the hacking of a dead girl’s cell phone. The man is a vampire. And for someone whose Fox News Network spends its every hour bashing Barak Obama, he seems awfully put out when Obama does something that may not suit his interests 100%. It’s pathetic.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST reply Recommend (21) Flag actions
Does he complain when his company raises rates with Cable and Satellite providers forcing them to pass that hike onto us the consumer. Which is what Direct Tv is about to do with their 10 percent hike? I care less about what this man says even if he’s trying to pretend he cares about the average Joe.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Damn hit post too soon and put my question marks in the wrong place. Meh
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you running for President?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What you have to understand is some of the people’s accomplishments are amde off of the backs of minimum waged people who were fired at the first sight of these people loosing less than a thousand dollars a year; then with the extra money saved, they then give themselves bonuses.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What the heck does that mean? He’s actually making the argument for the consumer… Rich guys take notice…even if you try to be down to earth and care about “the little people” some will look at your money and hate you.
We should just take it from him and give it back to the proletariat shouldn’t we Comrade?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Pretty simple in case you weren’t paying attention. His company news corp has twice raised rates for their programming for Cable and Satellite providers. In turn my month rates are increasing. How is that caring about the consumer?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:47 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Come on…complaining about popcorn prices isn’t pro-consumer.
That’s kind of like saying the kids whining about not getting an iPhone for Christmas are pro-capitalism. It technically is, but in the most pedantic way possible.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Oh yeah Rupert Murdoch is all about the little guy LMAO@you.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Popcorn and sode prices are high to subsidise the ticket prices. All of this is caused by Hollywood’s pricing.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 8:39 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Yes concession prices are only as high as they are because they are pretty much the theaters’ sole source of income. They make almost nothing off of ticket sales. That all goes back to the studios. Blame the studios.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 11:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I work for a furniture company in Orange County Ca, and I just sold a console to the CEO of Experian and he blatantly complained about the $115.oo Flat Delivery fee . . . . .the item was on clearance. . . .and he even complained about that price. . .Total $1250.42 . .He drove off in a MBZ SL550
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just a quick note for Rupert, saying that you found a bunch of illegal copies of Mission Impossible 4 the same day the movie passed 500 million at the box office isn’t gonna convince people your company is suffering.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:52 PM EST reply Recommend (24) Flag actions
But it does highlight how easy it is for people to steal. Sure Mission Impossible will still make money. but HUUUGE amounts of smaller films will not. and then guess what? no one will bother to make them.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What smaller film has been hurt by piracy? Give me an example…what low budget indie film that isn’t being distributed by a gigantic studio is being hurt by piracy?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
Not exactly low budget, but I think the Scott Pilgrim movie was really hurt by piracy.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:56 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Everyone was busy seeing Inception instead.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Inception and Scott Pilgrim were released nowhere near each other.
Now, there was that chick flick and The Expendables released the same weekend…
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They were released a month apart from one another. Inception would have still been in the theatres when Scott Pilgrim came out.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe being a bad movie hurt Scott Pilgrim more, though.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
Blasphemy I can tell you hate fun
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This next song is called “We Hate You, Please Die”
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:49 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Scott Pilgrim was not hurt by piracy that was a risky movie based on a property not known in the main stream…and it also was 60 million dollar movie released by a major studio not exactly a struggling small film.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 9:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And it was led Michael Cera. Definitely not an actor that brings millions to the theaters
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 1:52 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
What he doesn’t understand is most of those sites that come up on google offering free copies of the movie are just there for linkbaiting and don’t REALLY host free copies.
You have to do just a BIT more work to pirate stuff.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
For once and for 100 times: a download does not equate to a lost sale.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
Why would I buy a DVD if I have a DVD rip fromt he pirate bay on my laptop?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Better quality and to support the company.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:56 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
He’s referring to the fact that plenty of people who pirate things like movies or games would probably not buy/rent said game/movie if they couldn’t get it for free
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:05 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Most likely not but would you buy a DVD for every movie you downloaded illegally if you where unable to download them?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 7:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is not stealing. It is people finding other methods to pay what they perceive the fair market value for the product to be.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
hahah yeah they found new ways to pay, what’s this new way to pay? with a smile?
I’m sure the writers and creatives would really prefer a few bucks thrown their way.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are really quite stupid.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
thanks for contributing.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
look I am a goody-goody when it comes to being anti-piracy but SOPA is not the answer. Just like most anti-consumer legislation its real intent is wholly different than its advertised purpose and this is one in particular is disguised as an anti piracy bill.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I’d give a dollar for an edit button right now.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Your logic seems really suspect (to put it kindly). First off, people in the movie business don’t make them purely to make money (not counting big budget movies like Transformers etc which are only for entertainment and not for film-making). If an independent movie maker puts out a movie, it is to show how good his idea/skills are.
Second, smaller movies don’t collapse just because people pirate them – that’s an absurd notion. Even if we made stealing a movie as easy as searching for it and downloading it with one click, I am sure not more than 20-30% of the movies business would be affected. People who pirate these movies are also the ones who would never go to the movies/can’t go in the first place.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He’s trying to make the point that enforcing SOPA would **** everything up because then the government could go after google and other search engines which is ridiculous, hes in no way trying to say that the people who made the movie are somehow unfortunate
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Theft is theft. What’s your point?
That’s like saying Apple should start giving away iPhones for free after they make a couple of billion in profit…. do you see now how silly you are?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Piracy is NOT theft. It’s illegal and despised, but it’s NOT theft.
Theft involves removing a product from circulation, preventing sales. Piracy involves duplicating copyrighted material, which lowers sales.
In theft, you have a lost product, and you have blocked a sale completely. In piracy, you duplicate a product, which makes it harder for the consumer to decide between actually buying a product, or pirating it.
Don’t get me wrong here; both are bad. I just prefer that people know the difference between the two.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:46 PM EST reply Recommend (22) Flag actions
“Theft involves removing a product from circulation, preventing sales. Piracy involves duplicating copyrighted material, which lowers sales.”
Nope. Theft is simply the taking of one’s property without permission. That’s it. Nothing more. Pirates have tacked on this cut vs. copy separation that has nothing to do with anything.
Copying code is theft. Copying an idea is theft. Copying someone else’s words is theft. Likewise, copying a digital movie and using it without that person’s permission is theft. Doesn’t matter if the original is kept intact.Doesn’t matter if you personally would have paid money to see the movie. Piracy is just a particular type of theft.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re a joke. Do you think you can make up your own definitions? The legal definition of theft relates to physical property. Piracy is not and has never been charged as a theft/larceny. You can not cite one instance of a pirate being charged with theft because it has never happened. It is copyright infringement and is governed by different laws than theft, AKA the DMCA.
Copying code is not theft. Copying an idea is not theft. Copying someone else’s words is not theft. Copying a digital movie is not theft. This has been proven in many courts of law. You are flat out wrong.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 12:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
First off, calling someone a joke is just immature. I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish by doing so, but it doesn’t make your argument look any stronger.
And if you’re going to bring up the legal definition of theft, you may want to do your research. Legally it’s “the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker’s use (including potential sale).”
There is nothing under the legal definition of theft that states the property must be physical. Nothing. In fact, intellectual property theft is labelled as such and is a recognized crime.
So yeah. All those things I listed are considered theft. Legally.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Theft is theft but you don’t make extreme laws to prevent it. Walmart has 8500 store locations across the country, everyday they looses thousands of dollars do to theft but they aren’t petitioning the government to have armed police officers walking the ailes of every store. They accept that there is no way to prevent all theft and at the end of the day their are way more people buying from them then stealing from them.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:48 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Are you trolling?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreeing with Murdoch on anything – even if it’s cinema prices – makes me feel somewhat uneasy.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
The fact that he could demand that cinemas don’t charge more than say $10 per ticket (at pain of not getting the film as early as rivals) probably hasn’t occurred to him, or he doesn’t care
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Or he could offer a fair revenue split to the theatres, instead of the 90%+ that goes to the studio in the opening weeks. He CAN make movies cheaper, by allowing cinemas to actually make any money at all in the first few weeks the film is popular.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:29 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Want to know why popcorn & sodas are “offensive”?. In the first two weeks of a film’s release, the theatres typically only get 20% of the ticket price.
There are also notable exceptions — Star Wars: Episode 1 (a film that just happens to be distributed by Rupert’s own 20th Century Fox) infamously had a 100/0 split, with theatres getting $0 for every customer that refused to buy snacks.
Sure it sounds like a lot of money when you read that Mission Impossible did $44 million over a 4 day weekend, but what that really means is that each theatre collected just $638 a day.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:08 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I am confused, where are you getting $638 dollars a day?
Tickets ~$10
20% = $2
638/2 = 319 Tickets?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I didn’t mention the theatre count, but it was 3448.
$44 million in 3448 theatres
= $12,761 per theatre
= $3,190 per theatre per day
= $638 to theatres (over a number of showings)
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Thank you for clarifying.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t theaters also get royalties for showing the film in the first place? I don’t understand how a 20-screen theater could run on that. $5 million / year seems a bit low for a theater.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, they don’t…and THIS is why popcorn and drink prices are ridiculous.
After the 2nd week, the revenue split increases, usually to 50%. In the 4th or 5th week, the revenue to the theatre can even increase to 80%.
Over this weekend, Mission Impossible grossed $11.5 million, but theatres received $572 per day, or 90% of the grosses they received weeks ago when it pulled in 400% of the tickets.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I would love for Rupert to list off some of these “hurting writers and actors” that are suffering because of piracy. I can tell you Tom Cruise isn’t one of them.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Google is not a piracy leader, it’s users are. Google is as much a piracy leader as Yahoo! is. And where exactly does Google stream movies for free with ads without the consent of the movie’s creators?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:54 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Also, I bet the majority of those sites offering “free links” to the movie are just spam.virus infected sites trying to get you to click on them.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Exactly
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I watched kids at uni watch “I am Legend” full streamed on the day it was released on Youtube.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not YouTube’s fault that it’s users are pirates. YouTube can not operate on a business model that requires it to manually inspect every video before it goes live. Again, it’s the end user, not the site they choose to abuse.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Why isn’t it Youtube’s fault. A newspaper is responsible for what it publishes, why isn’t Google? Youtube makes huge sums of money from other peoples property that’s the business model..
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
People don’t upload articles that they wrote to newspapers. The newspaper hires people to create the articles and then show them. Pretty big difference, but since you’re astroturfing I don’t expect you to get it.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Yeah but no, people do submit articles and letters to newspapers and the publisher has a responsibility to what of those they publish.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Publishing a handful of letters or a single guest editorial is a significant difference than publishing the millions of uploaded user videos. Especially when most newspaper are not free to begin with.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:09 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
These are some pretty awful analogies you’re using. You’re seriously comparing the veto process between a handful of ‘letters to the editor’ submissions to the millions of videos that get uploaded to youtube? Do you expect there to be a human being to comb through each and every one?
Yes, there are bad eggs that slip through the net but given a choice between having the Youtube service exist as it is, and not having one at all… I’m glad it’s there. There is no realistic way to screen pirated content with reasonable levels of specificity and sensitivity, with the quantity of video submissions, and youtube is actually one of the better ones with Flagging. Compare this to Megavideo or Metacafe.
Now how about you take this childish rant elsewhere? Other posters have attempted to correct this flawed canard of yours and I can’t see you listening.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Think of a video on YouTube as an article on a newspaper. That would be like YouTube being the publisher/printer, however instead of having to read and edit maybe one hundred or less articles every week or twice a week, they would have to read/edit millions and millions of videos every week. That’s physically impossible to do under YouTube’s business model. They make money off of their Partner program and through contracts they make with companies like Machinima. As far as I understand the ads that get placed on videos where copyrighted content is found, by an automated system, are to generate revenue for the original content owners, not for YouTube.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s a poor analogy. I don’t think you’re wrong about YouTube, but it’s nothing like a newspaper, that content is wholly controlled by the paper.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Sure it’s not the best analogy, but comments on most newspapers sites are moderated. Why cant video’s (which is Youtube’s main form of content and source of revenue) be moderated. Just saying that’s not the way Youtube works is not fair.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is already moderated by an automatic system upon upload and by real humans in the case of flagging. How else do you expect them to moderate 8 years of video material uploaded every single day? Feasible suggestions please.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“comments on most newspapers sites are moderated. Why cant video’s (which is Youtube’s main form of content and source of revenue) be moderated”
If you really need to ask this, I’m seriously doubting if you know how Youtube (or the internet, really) works. Since you’re the critic, go ahead… suggest ONE realistic way they can moderate content, besides the existing flag/reason system they have now.
This conceit that you somehow have all the answers and are in a position to judge those who obviously know their own jobs better than yourself, amuses me.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can’t tell if stupid or trolling
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
YouTube is run by the users, they create the money, even if its wrong at times. Newspapers are not controlled by users, and to say they’re clean of any wrong doing is extremely silly to imply.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Youtube is controlled by Google. It’s cute that you think it’s not.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Youtube is owned by Google with provides the necessary underlying infrastructure to run the site and host the videos. Now, short of the official Google channel, essentially all the content is from user submissions. Google does not upload the content that you’re so quick to demonise. Do you think Twitter should take responsibility for every dumb statement that’s ever made too?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:23 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They profit from such user content, and they are effectively able to monitor pornography. i.e. they are responsible and capable to filtering the content.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
For the most part pornography is white and black. Copyrighted materials? Do you even know how much shit is copyrighted? Good luck figuring that one out.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
They don’t ‘monitor’ pornography. They pull it via the same process as any other questionable material, by user flags.. It just so happens that there are more people who take issue with porn on youtube than there are willing to flag pirated content.
Posted on Jan 17, 2012 | 6:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bad analogy. Employee’s of YouTube aren’t uploading copyrighted materials that they do not own the copyright or have permission for.
Should gun manufacturer be held responsible when someone uses a gun to commit a crime? What about knife manufactures?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No one else thinks this guy is weird to say he watches kids at uni that watched a movie on youtube? This guy is either a perv who should be locked up, he joined and watch illegal content and should be locked up, or he made up the story to support points because he’s too stupid to find real facts to support what he’s trying to say.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:14 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Or we all understand that “uni” is short for “university,” and – as is normal in Commonwealth English – is used interchangeably with the full word just as Americans call post-secondary education “college.” So he was on a college campus and some of the guys at school were actively pirating I Am Legend instead of going to a theatre and paying for it.
Because we’re not all morons.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Uh, the guy you were replying to quite obviously knows what “uni” is, half-wit.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:24 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
So the one thing you grasped onto was that someone might not have known what “Uni” meant? What else could he have possibly meant? What differing definition of ‘Uni’ could have possibly changed the content of his post?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I am Legend was released several years ago. I’m no fan of either Google or YouTube, but it is extremely well known that YouTube has since introduced stringent controls, including deploying software that scans uploads and automatically detects and removes infringing content.
As the Megaupload episode showed, if anything YouTube’s anti-piracy measures are too draconian.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yeah but no
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
<a href=“http://yeah but no ”http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mission+impossible+4+full+movie&oq=mission+impossible+4+&aq=5&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1901l8724l0l12651l17l16l0l0l0l1l556l3139l3.7.3.2.0.1l16l0" >" target="new">YEAH BUT NO
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
stupid thing
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Old man doesn’t understand what a search engine is or how it works. Move along.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:56 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (35) Flag actions
Young punk doesn’t realize that being a search engine doesn’t mean you can neglect your responsibilities, when you “publish” results.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is it the responsibility of a company that makes a telephone directory index to ensure that all companies listed are selling services that are on the up and up? Is it the responsibility of a city map makers to not include streets of any areas where criminal activity is common?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (31) Flag actions
And you dont realise that a search engines job is to show people what they want if somebody wants to find a torrent they use a search engine because thats the whole point of a search engine.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:32 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Go away you pervy old man.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:15 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Are gas companies guilty of theft whenever thieves use their product in their cars during a bank robbery? Surely not. Google is doing exactly what it should do: not discriminating. Google’s search service is as ubiqutous as gas, and like gas it’s primarily used for good. Also, they do have their own Google Music now, remember, which I assume they set up hoping it will be profitable, thus more proftiable than their ad sales from pirate bay. Maybe murdoch should just stick with print media, and die along with it.
perhaps
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Not sure if brainwashed by Fox, or just plain stupid
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:00 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Censored results?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Rupert Murdoch, a business man who cashes in on discord and the lowest form of entertainment, would certainly like that.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Old imbecile is as clueless as they come. Move along.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Young/old man doesn’t realize that a search engine isn’t a newspaper.
Google is far more like a tool maker than a publisher. Just because text is involved doesn’t mean it’s published. You can’t blame a tool maker for what people do with their tools.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Publish implies there’s a conscious effort in search results. It’s all algorithms and data.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
A search engine provide results. Google’s search engine gives results. Google the company sells advertisements related to those results. Google pulls a profit from those advertisements. Google profits from content.
It’s illegal to profit from stolen property. Those people are called fences. Google is just a middle man – they didn’t steal it, and they’re not doing the consumption – but they are actively participating in the trade of copyrighted material. To be fair, so is Microsoft and AOL and Yahoo!. But “everyone’s doing it” is not a very good argument for moral (or legal) rectitude
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Another half-wit heard from.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:26 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Does that also mean every computer hardware manufacturer and electric company in the world is involved too?
How far down the line are you willing to go with this ridiculous logic?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:44 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
SOPA is bad but the problem is wore. When we strike down SOPA, they will be back. WE need to solve piracy so old people in Washington dont. If the internet can slow down with the piracy, then there wont have to be a legislative answer.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
We can’t solve piracy issues on the internet because content holders won’t let us. Piracy only exists because content providers suck at their job.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Oh, I never knew that not being able to hand-check millions of accounts for pirated material makes a content provider “suck at [their] job”.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
NO. You. Don’t. Get. It.
Content providers suck at their job because they can’t give us the content we want in the right format for the right price.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:16 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
I’m totally not one who typically rallies against piracy, but high prices is not a very good reason to pirate copyrighted material.
Content providers can make as many mistakes as they want, with the things they own, as long as they stay in business. It’s not up to us to then take that content and distribute it illegally. It’s unfortunate and unfair, but it doesn’t force anyone to pirate anything.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you fucking joking? Do you also steal your groceries, car and house because they are not sold at “the right price”?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Indeed. Content providers suck at, well, providing content. But how do you figure that we’re entitled to download what isn’t legally ours just because they don’t cater to our every need? If you have a problem with the way things are, take a stand. Don’t buy media that doesn’t meet your price or format standards, and don’t pirate it either. Increased piracy will only further encourage the government and corporations to interfere with our lives.
To me, most movies are too expensive, whether they are on DVD, downloaded, or in the theatres. As such, I don’t watch many movies. Simple as that. Don’t get me wrong, content providers need to get rid of the convoluted restrictions they impose on the content that people legally own, but if we as consumers don’t meet them halfway and stop pirating, that will never happen.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The best way to combat piracy is to fire everyone in their respective industries who act as the “middle men” and take a large sum of the profits and charge exuberant prices for the media. Replace those people with automated services that don’t involve middle men, or get new people who won’t become corrupt with the idea of making loads of money for little effort. That way the original content creators can charge less for their product and more people will be willing to spend what little money they have to legitimately own the content.
However there will always be people that refuse to pay even a penny for anything online, and will always look for ways to pirate. There is no way around those people.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I think those people are a very small minority. If they made getting content fast, easy and reasonably priced in all regions of the world there would be very few issues.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I completely agree. These initiatives exist and we all know them as spotify and google music and what have you. They’re not profitable only due the shitty deals they’re forced to close with over-protective record companies, and that truly saddens me.
even sadder is that record companies will have to accept, sooner or later, they’re gonna have to fire a shit load of people. Good hard working people too, and the overpaid ceo’s will most likely stay unharmed. the result is cheaper movie tickets and music, more money for content creators and movie theaters.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
News flash, SOPA is not worse than piracy. These idiots think that every pirated copy is one they WOULD have sold or rented etc. And that’s simply not true. The people who generally pirate something WOULD Never pay for it no matter how cheap it was. These are the same people who wouldn’t rent this material at $99 cents. They are also teen agers who have no disposable income to speak of.
Not to mention that the movie and music industry had nobody but themselves to blame if teenagers grew up to continue doing it when they got older. They have fought tooth and nail and had to be dragged into the modern age before they would post anything on the internet. Not to mention that the Movie industry still hasn’t learned that DRM does not work and only encourages piracy.
Louis C.K. has proven that when you don’t act like a douche and make your material available at a decent price, people will flock to it and you’ll make more than enough money.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
At least someone is trying to do something about the outrageous prices for popcorn.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 5:59 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why? How much does popcorn cost on Twitter? I didn’t even know you could do that. :/
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
I am glad I wasn’t the only one that thought there was Twitter popcorn.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This was amazing from a few nights ago:
…few minutes later:
Hilarious, and more evidence he doesn’t understand the Internet!
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
I wonder if he’s ever read his own papers.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:25 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I’m surprised this guy knows how to do a Google search. He doesn’t even know who runs his own media/news conglomerates.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well he did say that he had just been to a Google search. Maybe someone acted it out for him like a play?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Yeah Guaranteed that this guy has his e-mails read to him by his secretary. Otherwise he might actually get some of this stuff.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I only agreed with him once. That popcorn and soda really is too damn expensive. Glad my parents taught me to bring in my own snacks/drinks years ago. Saves me enough money that I could see a second movie the week after if I wanted…
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Worst thing ever: when you approach the snack bar prepared to pay the outrageous price for a Coke, and they only sell Pepsi :-/
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
go home and take a nap, Rob
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I really want to believe that Murdoch is some sort of insanely clever method-acting troll because I refuse to accept to be part of the same species as someone so unbelievably idiotic.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Rupert Murdoch whose company hack users phones and steal peoples personal details to disgrace them in the papers and he says a search engine whose job is to show results that people have searched for is doing a bad immoral thing, hmmmm needs to take a look in the mirror.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:26 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Tough to be a filmmaker? Hurting writers and actors? Thanks to things like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and other content sharing sites, there’s NEVER been a better time to be any of those. It’s removed the exclusivity of Hollywood and opened up doors for Independent film. More and more people have access to these films, and more and more are watching them.
Mr. Murdoch clearly has no idea what he’s talking about in areas outside of big business.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
I don’t understand how some idiots on the Verge (noticed I never said Vergins, since these people are not true Verge users since they are too stupid to be counted as one) miss the fact that Murdoch supports the bill so his pocket will gain more money.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I mean common he looks like a ballsack how can you take him seriously
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
So a guy who profits off of hacking dead peoples cell phones and posting voicemails as stories , is going to tell the internet how to be Moral, really???
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:40 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
He’s really not the one to talk. Just sayin’
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Murdoch has all the reasons to be for SOPA.
1. Since the Internet has gone mainstream, the number of people watching TV and thus FOX and FOX News has dramatically declined.
2. The Internet tends to be more on the liberal side. Open to modern things, for diversity and of course: Science.
3. The Internet allows Americans to check if all the stories on Faux News are actually true. There are several websites debunking the lies spread by the News Corporation and yes, Murdoch would love to see those shut down.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 6:54 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You might have an argument if any of yours facts were correct. But their not.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then argue against them
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:38 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
*they’re
Fox News viewer?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 9:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oooohhhh grandpa just discovered Google search…
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I got it! Murdoch is using Googles new Search plus Your World feature! So Google assumed he was a pirate since people in his circles hack phones and steal information. Googles algorithms are getting really good.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Despite their own “do no evil” policy, I would for love Google to block Murdoch from being searched, or block any web articles that pertain to him, and just block Murdoch’s IP from Google.
Then, Twitter should disable his account.
FOR THE INTERNET!
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would love to see his reaction if they did that, but the fact is, if Google did, we’d never hear from him again and would miss out on his next rant.
Every time I see his stupid ass I see the Simpsonized version of him, and think he’s more like Professor Farnsworth on Futurama. Except I like the professor from Futurama.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m sure in 100 years from now people will be looking back on the content owners a fools for no providing a medium of purchase or subscription without DRM. Fear is what is stopping them from just going all out for the mass market. Regardless of what content owners do piracy will always exist if there is an economy for it to do so.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Guess what grandad, “Silicon Valley” is going to kill your bloated business dead. The kids of today’s kids won’t know what the hell “Fox News” ever was.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh and, dude, do you think Google is STEALING YOUR NEWSPAPERS too?
Or are profits diving because your newspapers are rubbish and your reporters are corrupt?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If ten percent of consumption is pirated, you’ve got something to fight. If over 50 percent of consumption is pirated you’ve got a flawed business model.
I’m not a big leftie bring-down-the-evil-music-companies type, really, but record companies and film companies all act like bloated massively over employed behemoths that are simply struggling to retain a service to sell. What do they do again that renders them THAT important? Piracy is by no means an end. But at the moment it’s a neccessary means to get record companies as they are on the street and have them replaced by internet’s paid alternatives. Spotify, or Google’s own Google Music.
Face it murdoch. Just like employees in car manufacturing companies a century ago, your employees in the music and film industry have been replaced by robots. now skeet.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 7:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Rupert Murdoch does not and never will understand the user curated and controlled web or just the web in general. Its why all his digital ventures fail. Its why MySpace is a dead man walking, why the Daily is awful and why his paywalls just make users go to other places.
Heres the problem. Murdoch accuses people of downloading free films but maybe they would be more willing to pay if they werent given a continuous line of crap to watch. Money talks in Hollywood and all it is sequel after reboot after another sequel after movie based on something else. No originality. Money talking is a two way street.
Secondly maybe if the content industry actually innovated and stopped trying to keep the status quo from the 90s. He needs reminding that convenience, availability and price will always beat quality.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:06 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Plus someone should remind him Hollywood itself was founded on piracy in a number of ways.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
hows that? (im curious)
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If your interested I would read The Master Switch by Tim Wu. But essentially when the film industry in America started, Thomas Edison, Kodak and some others pooled the patents together to essentially control film in that country. So film makers fled to Hollywood in response so they didn’t have to pay patent fees and use the technology freely or be under their control.
Then there was a second bit about copying foreign films but I forget the details.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
cool, thanks!
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/lessig.html
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes Lawrence Lessigs book called Free Culture would be the companion book to the Master Switch I would recommend. While im at it may as well recommend Content by Cory Doctorow. Who ironically releases a lot of his books for free.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Damn the guy’s worth like 5 billion dollars and he can’t afford a pair of straight glasses?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why exactly is anyone listening to what Murdoch says about internet or online piracy? It’d be like listening to Beiber talk about tax law – there’s no value to what he says because he doesn’t know anything about the topic.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This is the same Rupert Murdoch that profits of hacking in phone’s and voicemail right? If anyone is a pirate, it’s Murdoch.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Hey! Let’s be fair to Rupert! He has a legitimate interest in trying to keep pirates from violating his rights to the audiotapes that his people hacked from that dead girl’s cellphone!
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I have to question a man who’s company hacked a dead girls cell phone and and voicemail and claimed blind ignorance to it. Rupert to me doesn’t care too much about the average Joe, he cares about profits.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 8:44 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Go back to hacking murdered kids’ cell phones you Aussie piece of trash.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 10:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
At long last, Rupert, won’t you have the simple common decesncy to fucking die already?
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The fact that Murdoch believes a search engine should filter out results is the problem.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:30 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
So now that Rupe and his hack pack can’t make it on their own without cheating, lies, payoffs, phone and intelligence hacks , government bribes and theft/embesilment on a global scale he takes to Twitter to further his trail of industrial chunks and YOU clowns in the tech media actually help?
You’re a disgusting PAC of slime.
Posted on Jan 15, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Amen
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The popcorn price is really making me nuts actually. Had to deny popcorn for myself as a protest.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
SOPA de Hamlet (From an iPhone app called PhoneBook Plus, quite brilliant)
To support, or not to support-, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The bans and fines of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them. To support is to be more aligned with developing nations like China, not to support, is to be cast out of countries like France And the great empire of the US of A. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, let your PhoneBook help spread the words of action. Happy Year Of 2012!
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whoa there’s been some shitstorm here. But yeah I hate that popcorn prices are too high too. I don’t like coming to movies with my Ferrari AND paying for the popcorn.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 4:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re all wrong. Filesharing is NOT piracy! Piracy is when you sell what you download. Filesharing is akin to borrowing an audio cassette, just that the internet eliminated all the “inconveniences”. Filesharing “happens” parallel to convenient digital stores. The fact that it is there has nothing to do with lost profit, people are just using the internet to share data as they have done so since the dawn of the LAN. This confusion that has been going on since Napster must stop.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 8:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Billionaire tweets about how another group of billionaires inadvertantly help pinch off a few dimes, nickels and pennies from his business. OK, I get that.
Billionaire then tweets that he is offended by the high price of snacks and treats that the little people must pay, when consuming his product. How considerate!
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 9:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It really is exhausting hearing outrage over Google making money off of piracy. YouTube is a place where users upload their content. 48 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute. What do people expect them to do, exactly? Hire half of the worlds population to police the website and take down whatever they find that could infringe content? There is no magic algorithm that can discover copyrighted content.
Secondly, almost all tech companies make money off of piracy. Apple has iTunes, but does anyone actually think that the majority of people that bought the first 10 or so million iPods did so for any other reason than to put their Napster and Kazaa collections on them? Hell, Boxee exists purely for piracy.
AMD/ATi and Nvidia also benefit from gamers who are willing to shell out $2-500 for a graphics card but are unwilling to shell out the $50 for whatever the current game of the moment is.
Philips, Samsung, Sony, NEC and whoever else produced DVD and CD burners had most of their sales to people that were copying CDs and giving them to their friends. A significant number of people had Netflix accounts so they could rent out DVDs, copy them and send them back. Hell, every single person I knew that had a Netflix account during the first 2-3 years of Netflix life had an account ONLY to do this.
I think SOPA and PIPA are among the most despicable legislation proposed in the last few years. The ability for companies to censor any website that has infringing content or is viewed as “promoting” infringing content opens the doors for abuse and a complete dismantling of free speech on the internet.
Let’s stop playing fanboy, claiming that Google is somehow the company that profits the most from piracy. Even if it is true, it does not matter right now. The problem right now is not piracy, the problem is SOPA and PIPA.
Disclaimer: I agree with Nilay that the tech companies need to come up with some sort of real solution of their own, because we can’t just keep pretending that we have a right to have whatever is created, for free.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 11:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Netflix has proven (with the very large success of it’s streaming business) that people are willing to pay for content. I can guarantee you that yes the first few people you knew who had netflix used it to copy DVD’s. But that’s a pittance of the amount of people that are actively getting discs and streaming from netflix.
Streaming is the best possible solution for these content owner idiots in that, there is no physical media, and for the most part very little piracy. Yet even after iTunes and Amazon and Netflix have shown them that movies and TV shows can be sold, rented etc on the internet they cry like little babies because they aren’t making what they USED to make.
They used to only have 4 channels before Cable to show content on, yet they tried to stop Cable at one point. They used to have no legal way for people to watch movies on a device like a VCR, yet they tried to sue that into oblivion as well. They sued DVR makers for commercial skipping, yet it’s been proven with studies that People who use DVR’s actually pay attention to ads that they like, rather than the rest of society that just ignores them even when they are right in front of their face.
Now these idiots want to try and put the internet back in the box, even though there are hundreds of ways they already take advantage of it and profit from it. Without internet based trailers there was no way that a crappy movie like “The Devil Inside” would have made 37 million in one weekend.
I’m tired of these aholes crying about being taken advantage and posting record profits from their movie and DVD/Blu-Ray divisions while also making money on streaming videos and selling digital copies of movies etc. Alot of these revenue streams DIDN"T exist 5 years ago.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just read something that was posted as part of www.digitalbits.com CES wrapup.
“U.S. Consumer spending on Blu-ray software topped $2 billion in the U.S. alone for the first time. (DEG)”
I would like you to read that number on BLU-RAY software “PURCHASES”, that is money people spent on movies to watch on BLU-RAY.
I would also like to point out that the DVD industry is most definitely not in some kind of slump. For example here are the top 10 DVD sales numbers for week ending January 1st.
Title Units this Week % Change Total Units Sales this Week Total Sales Weeks in Release
The Hangover Part II $38,348,637 4
The Help $58,567,516 4
Harry Potter $83,378,507 8
Rise of the Planet of the Apes $30,388,914 3
Dolphin Tale $13,598,448 2
Final Destination 5 $2,697,436 1
Smallville: Season 10 $17,475,969 5
Kung Fu Panda 2 $27,264,056 3
True Blood: Season 3 $32,651,469
Dexter: Season Five $16,263,501 20
So for those that won’t do the math. The DVD (not including blu-ray) Sales for ONLY the top 10 movies most of which had only been out between 4 and 8 weeks is $320,629,000 thats over Three Hundred and Twenty Million on only a portion of the movies they released last year on DVD alone.
This doesn’t include VOD sales, iTunes sales, iTunes rentals, Amazon rentals, not to mention the other 3 or 4 rental video stores that the studios themselves set up. It also doesn’t include RENTALS at physical locations such as the remaining mom and pop video stores.
AGAIN Nearly 400 Million dollars on DVD only Sales for a very small portion of last year. Tell me again why these guys are crying like they are poor?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh Just want to add one thing, Warner Brothers who cries the most about declining DVD sales, Piracy, and how they don’t make as much money off of Streaming made over 7.7 BILLION, once again, 7.7 BILLION in sales on the Tickets from the Harry Potter films alone.
They made during the year of 2011, over $210 Million on DVD sales of the Harry Potter films and held both the number 1 spot and number 3 spot with it’s two parts.
So Warner Brothers the company that has made so very much money over the past 8 or so years, is the one that wants to limit people’s access to movies by restricting rental outlets like Netflix from getting their movies for nearly Two months after it’s released on DVD.
So I think we can all take it with a grain of salt when people like Rupert Murdoch want a shoulder to cry on about how they are having such a hard time of it and that they are losing money etc.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Clarification;
They made during the year of 2011, over $210 Million on DVD sales of the Harry Potter films and held both the number 1 spot and number 3 spot with it’s two parts of the Deathly Hallows.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 3:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Rupert Murdoch can kiss my lily white ass. Mission impossible: Ghost Protocol has made nearly 500 Million Dollars. Even if the budget was an insane $300 million that means the movie has raked in over $200 million in pure 100% profit. Now let’s talk about all of the Advertising deals they struck because I guarantee A man like Murdoch doesn’t let people advertise in cahoots with is big tentpole film of the year for free.
The man is one of the sleaziest greedy MF’ers on the planet. Yes he worked to get where he did, but he’s been rich dozens of times over and yet he constantly whines that people are stealing from him.
If he wants to deal with piracy then he should open his damned eyes and see that things like DRM and Tiered releases only fuel the fire. When you advertise to every kid with an internet connection by plastering commercials etc for a movie, then of course once they’ve seen it in the theater once or twice. They are going to try and find it online.
Want to avoid that, I can tell you exactly how to do so. Put it online on a website dedicated to it, make it easy to watch without doing DUMBASS stuff like making people register. Have a random commercial from your advertising partners and or trailers that play before it (just like at the theaters) and I guarantee you that you will get MILLIONS of MILLIONS of views. And I bet that after a few days you would not only get A TON OF MONEY, but the theaters would see increased traffic for the movie, if it’s decent. (it is, I’ve seen it).
But if you keep making it harder and harder to get to your content, it will get worse.
As for DRM not being necessary, go look up "Louis C.K and the MILLION + dollars he’s made on a single appearance video he put up without any DRM and annoying registration crap etc.
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s funny that he got those links when he searched for a movie since google tailors it;s search depending on the user. Food for thought hmm?
Posted on Jan 16, 2012 | 10:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.