MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'


Recommended Posts

There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong." After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC. And it got slaughtered. We've already discussed our thoughts on why the MPAA failed, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were. Whether it's just more backroom dealing, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.

The Hollywood Reporter's version of the post mortem is a good read, even though it covers much the same ground as many other such recaps. Still, it's worth reading to get a good feel for Hollywood's view of the world. But the really stunning part is the quote from Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's number two guy, who makes what may be the most tone-deaf statement we've seen to date in this fight:

The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was outmanned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

Yes, even when he tries to say that they're trying to learn about the confounded internet thingy, he sounds ridiculous and dismissive. But the real point is his inadvertent admission within that statement: the MPAA (and the rest of "old" Hollywood) simply "is not comfortable with" the internet. And that's really what SOPA and PIPA were about. Rather than trying to understand this new platform, and learn from the many entertainers who do get the internet, they did what the MPAA does and simply tried to regulate that which they don't understand and fear.

Furthermore, even more ridiculous is the end of that sentence: "an opponent that controls that platform." As the article makes clear, he means Google. Which shows that he still doesn't get it. First, Google didn't lead the protests. It came late to the game, after the grassroots had already taken off with this stuff and run with it. But, more to the point, contrary to what O'Leary and the MPAA seem to believe: Google does not control the internet. No one does.

This, of course, explains why the MPAA wants to "negotiate" with Google these days. But that's not going to work. The folks on the internet don't want a backroom deal, whether it's negotiated by Google or someone else. Either way, this suggests that the MPAA is desperately in need of new leadership. They need leaders who don't try to regulate that which they admit they don't understand. They need leaders who aren't so clueless as to think that Google controls the internet (or that Google is somehow "the enemy.") And, really, most important, they need leaders who recognize and understand that the internet is their future too -- and any leadership needs to not fear the internet, but understand it and learn to embrace it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the MPAA is going to find such leadership any time soon.

Source: TechDirt

The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was outmanned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

It?s like their some kind of vaudeville era villain, twiddling their handlebar mustache and yelling ?I?ll get you next time, Internet!?

  • Like 1

It?s like their some kind of vaudeville era villain, twiddling their handlebar mustache and yelling ?I?ll get you next time, Internet!?

You've referenced a scene that takes place in several movies; MPAA says shut Neowin down!!!!

He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform.
Does he mean Google?

The current CEO of MPAA is Chris Dodd, the guy has been working congress and senate for the last 20+ years. He was force to quit the senate in 2010 because he was becoming unpopular with the people for all this corruptios. Go figure...

if they learnt to adapt they would be more comfortable with it, its not liek it hasnt been around for 15+years :/ were they not comfortable when tapes came out or cd's came out, or dvd,s or mp3 players friggen idiots

if they learnt to adapt they would be more comfortable with it, its not liek it hasnt been around for 15+years :/ were they not comfortable when tapes came out or cd's came out, or dvd,s or mp3 players friggen idiots

Considering they were the ones publishing the tapes, CDs, and DVDs, I'm pretty sure they weren't too concerned with those formats. I'd be surprised if they weren't comfortable with mp3 players once Napster starting gaining popularity, though.

You're right. They should've done a much better job of adapting. I wonder how bad off they would be if iTunes and similar services didn't go live when they did.

Considering they were the ones publishing the tapes, CDs, and DVDs, I'm pretty sure they weren't too concerned with those formats. I'd be surprised if they weren't comfortable with mp3 players once Napster starting gaining popularity, though.

You're right. They should've done a much better job of adapting. I wonder how bad off they would be if iTunes and similar services didn't go live when they did.

Jack Valenti, the former head of the MPAA, once said that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone".

They never have understood technology. All they care about is power and control, as they think that's how they will earn their profits.

The MPAA has always been against technology. This goes back to cassette tapes and video tapes and the user ability to record/copy. What really freaked them out is when congress passed the Audio and Video Recording act of 1992 which stated that copying for personal use and sharing was OK, but making many copies and selling them was not OK.

Then you had the DMCA which tried to break those copying mechanisms. SOPA/PIPA was the next step in the MPAA/RIAA trying to trample everyone's rights to their own personal belongings. Not to mention they wanted to crush amateur creativity because they see it as competition.

The MPAA has always been against technology. This goes back to cassette tapes and video tapes and the user ability to record/copy. What really freaked them out is when congress passed the Audio and Video Recording act of 1992 which stated that copying for personal use and sharing was OK, but making many copies and selling them was not OK.

Then you had the DMCA which tried to break those copying mechanisms. SOPA/PIPA was the next step in the MPAA/RIAA trying to trample everyone's rights to their own personal belongings. Not to mention they wanted to crush amateur creativity because they see it as competition.

Here is a lovely timeline. This industry has for its entire lifespan been slow, deaf, and dumb.

http://matadornetwork.com/change/infographic-why-the-movie-industry-is-so-wrong-about-sopa/

TED best explains why SOPA/PIPA is primarily being crafted to destroy all competition from amateur sources and more:

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html?awesm=on.ted.com_ACxO

... This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."

There's your problem. Why even fight it? Why not just accept the internet as it is, and adapt to it. THIS IS WHY EVERYBODY HATES YOU. If you approached the internet with an open mind, and some fresh ideas, you'd have been lauded (well, maybe not) for innovating on a new platform and bringing us original content in a new and excitingly convenient way. Instead, you come to our internet with your war machine, accuse us all of being evil pirates, and want to turn it into your internet where you can control the flow of information, suppress competition, and stifle innovation on a massive scale.

Your outdated methodology of artificial scarcity (copyright) doesn't work in a world where there is (by definition) no scarcity. But instead of accepting this and innovating around the issue, you use your money to exploit corrupt politicians to get your own way and try to censor and otherwise break the internet.

The fact that services like Netflix, Hulu and Spotify exist and continue to make decent profits should be evidence enough that most of us are not inherently out to take your content without paying for it, but when you punish us for using legitimate services, why should we bother? When was the last time a pirate saw the anti-piracy bull**** on a movie they downloaded? When was the last time a pirate had to call tech support to reinstall his computer game? When was the last time a pirate had to install a rootkit to put his new CD album onto his mp3 player? Never, never and never respectively. Many of us stopped illegally downloading content as soon as these streaming services came along. Spotify and iTunes have vastly reduced music piracy by making legal music downloads easy and cheap to access. Netflix and Hulu (in the USA only until recently) will also have reduced piracy for the same reasons.

Your war on the internet falls on deaf ears mainly because your companies (in the movie, game and music industries) all made record profits last year. You're not suffering from piracy, not even close, and if you were, we still wouldn't listen because the great thing about the internet is that it's the perfect adapt-or-die world. If you can't adapt and compete, then you will not survive. You however seem to think that you're exempt from this because it doesn't suit your anti-consumer business model, and so you want to break our internet through censorship and control, and frankly, we won't let you. If you try, we'll just take our ball, and play somewhere else, and you still won't be invited.

Get. a. Clue.

I think too many companies are refusing to adapt their business model to the new era of technology. The USPS is a great example of this. They're bleeding money, partly because if you don't change with the times you get left behind.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!