Even as DVD sales plummet, DVD rentals rose 4.1 percent to $6.5 billion in 2009.  This rise happened even though 3.2 percent fewer rentals happened in video stores. Rather, the increase is most likely attributed to the 94 percent increase at rental kiosks like Redbox, which has been under attack by movie companies for siphoning their business with cheap $1 rentals. Those $1 rentals (and low-priced used DVD sales) added up to $1 billion in revenue for Redbox. So lower price, more money. Maybe movie companies will recognize the basic economics at work and stop fighting successful business models for people willing to spend money on their movies.

…but movie companies certainly don’t see that. Paramount Pictures released its study of the five million IP addresses it tracked who downloaded camcorded copies of Star Trek.  Writing to the FCC, Paramount says:

Just five years ago, one had to be computer literate and exceedingly patient to pirate movies. Today, literally anyone with an internet connection can do it. Clunky websites are being replaced by legitimate looking and legitimate feeling pirate movie websites, a perception enhanced by the presence of premium advertisers and subscription fees processed by major financial institutions.

So after years of suing and spending millions in lobbying, spying, and prevention, Paramount agrees it is easier than ever to download movies. Downloading movies “has advanced from geek to sleek” they say.

I interpret this as a sign that the movie companies’ campaign against piracy has not worked. It is easier than ever to download any movie, song, or game you want and it will only get faster and easier. More people are doing it and aren’t embarrassed by it. For all the propaganda (see last Sunday’s 60 minutes), file-sharing is what the market wants.

Paramount, of course, sees the opposite.  The spreading of file-sharing means movie companies need more laws to stop file-sharing, while never showing how these laws, assuming they worked (which they won’t), would encourage customers to go back to their former purchasing practices.

That’s why Big Champagne, a company that tracks online piracy, is urging movie companies to rethink their piracy strategies, claiming their own practices are encouraging file-sharing, especially in European countries where they might wait weeks or months for a TV show or movie to air. CEO Eric Garland tells CNET:

In the digital world, we don’t want to wait three months, six months. We’re just not accepting that anymore…we want it all, we want it right now and even Mom and Pa Kettle are getting to the point where they say if it’s not on, let’s just fire up the computer and watch it. If they want me to wait six months, I’ve got other options. And people don’t really have a conscious [sic] or qualms about that.

So we know waiting hurts (why wait when you don’t have to). But instead of searching for alternatives, movie companies want more windows, or at least maintain the ones they have. This goes against what customers are demanding. Instead of offering customers a compelling product, movie companies just want the government to pass laws supporting their obsolete business models.

For all the increases in file-sharing, movie production and revenue has risen (ignore the blatant lies in the aformentioned 60 Minutes segment), from 567 movies released in 2004 to 1177 movies scheduled for release this year.  Total revenue rose by about $300 million from 2004-2008 (this year hasn’t ended, and for reference 1037 movies came out in 2008).  So more movies, more money. I wish file-sharing would hurt my industry the same way.

Ars Technica’s Nate Anderson has written an excellent history of how the content industry has fought against pretty much every technological advancement over the past 100 years for fear it would end creative expression forever. As we know this isn’t true. Rather, technology helps increase the market for these creative works (and other industries) by decreasing costs and increasing efficiency. It is much cheaper and easier to create and distribute music than it was 10 years ago, let alone 100 years ago.

Anderson profiles the content industry’s fight against the gramophone and player piano. John Philip Sousa campaigned to Congress to ban these evil machines for replacing live performances, not recognizing that home recordings might increase the demand for those live performances. This gave birth to the compulsory license system, where the government set rates sheet music must pay to songwriters, we have still to this day, though it has been vastly expanded.

Photocopiers spelled doom for the print industry, with UCLA law professor Melville Nimmer saying “the day may not be far off when no one need purchase books.” While the U.S. and its courts upheld a fair use right to copying, Canada and other countries must pay royalties to collection agencies for every copy. Canada pays the same tax on rewritable CDs and iPods because they might be used for pirated content.

Movie companies famously referred to the VCR as the “Boston strangler” as it killed the movie industry. Universal sued Sony over Betamax all the way to the Supreme Court to ban the use of home recording. Once found legal, movie companies decided to sell copies of their own movies to home viewers, a revolutionary practice that led to the multi-billion dollar home video and rental market.

Pretty much every expansion into digital media has been fought tooth-and-nail by the content industry, from Napster to DVR to the iPod.

Anderson also left out some other highlights. Cable TV, when originally introduced, featured almost exclusively pirated content from network television. This allowed cable television to expand far enough that it could afford its own programming. Even the movie industry began by fleeing New York to Hollywood to escape enforcement of Thomas Edison’s patents and the high prices he charged to anyone wanting to make movies.

Presently, the DMCA makes sure technological innovations are few and far between to help the content industry.  While CDs were released without DRM and thus able to be ripped onto computers and people’s iPods, DVDs are copy-protected and thus illegal to copy in anyway. Even though it is easy to do so, no software or hardware can be released that can take advantage of people’s massive DVD collections.  Even though the content industry claims it would never sue to ban innovation, the industry has done so several times, and won these cases, holding back technology and innovation that consumers want and could do more to help expand the content market.

Musicians in the U.K. have been staking out positions for and against a proposed 3-strikes law where after 3-strikes, file-sharers of copyrighted material would be banned from the internet. Lily Allen (a personal favorite of mine) launched a blog in support of the 3-strikes law, but resulted more in a lesson to strong copyright supporters that no longer is copyright just an issue for those creating content.

To summarize the more than week long back-and-forth, Lily Allen began her blog, It’s Not Alright, a few weeks ago arguing file-sharing was stealing and hurting new artists writing “File sharing eats away at opportunity for new artists: by cutting off income at the most crucial, cash-strapped point in their careers and by limiting A&R’s ability to sign new acts outside of the mainstream.”

Allen’s blog quickly gathered a large community of copyleft and copyrighters debating Allen’s arguments and the merits of the laws she endorsed. TorrentFreak pointed out Allen copied an entire post from (another personal favorite) Techdirt without citation or a link. Techdirt’s Michael Masnick explained he didn’t care about the copying, but pointed to how hypocritical Allen’s was being.

A few days later it was revealed that Allen, while a new musician herself, released mixtapes online of her and other artists’ music, music which she did not have the copyright to. These mixtapes were still available on her website – entire songs. Allen defended this as her not understanding copyright law when she made them and that the songs were just excerpts.

Hundred of people commented on her blog and many bloggers posed questions for Allen to justify her position on file-sharing while she herself had no problem copying blog posts and file-sharing songs herself. Further, she used free services like Blogger, MySpace, and Twitter to share her music and connect with fans, turning her from a new artist to a famous artist. And she didn’t respond to questions from Masnick and others asking how Allen balanced her belief that file-sharing was harming music when the U.K.’s music industry’s own study showed the music industry was growing.

Allen discontinued her blog claiming Masnick and other copylefters were bullying and attacking her (one person said Masnick of “leading” his “internet army” to attack her while being angry.

But all this really teaches us that copyright affects more than just musicians. There is a growing fervor among consumers that copyright and the content industry are expanding too far onto individuals and their civil rights. Recording companies keep increasing the penalties for file-sharing, yet file-sharing keeps growing because that’s what technology and the market demands. No amount of government intervention will force people to buy CDs again.

Because Allen stopped blogging and has ended her career does not mean copyright isn’t working. The music industry in the U.K. has significantly grown as technology has made it easier and cheaper to make and share music. Allen herself took advantage of these free and cheap tools to make herself famous, and only when famous does she change her tune (see what I did there) on copyright. While I’ll be very sad to not have any more of her music, there are thousands of new artists eager for space on my iPod.

Not content to learn from the 10 plus years of mistakes by the recording industry, the movie industry is stampeding its way to obsolescence.

First, Fox and Warner Bros. have joined Universal in its battle with Redbox, the successful rental kiosks found outside supermarkets and fast food joints. Redbox rents movies for $1 a day, legally purchasing the movies from wholesalers. Redbox will even sell used DVDs for about $7.

Fox, Warner Bros. and Universal have sued claiming Redbox is infringing on their copyrights and are ordering wholesalers to refuse to sell their movies to Redbox before several weeks. The studios are demanding revenue sharing from the kiosks.

Redbox is countersuing for antitrust and abuse of their copyrights.

Redbox, while relying on the movie studios, is in a stronger position. Sony and Lions Gate are backing the kiosks with their movies, recognizing that movie fans love the price and convenience. DVD sales are down 13 percent while rentals are up 8 percent.

Next, the movie studios recently won two important court cases, both likely to cause more damage to the industry rather than help.  The first was the studio’s win over Real’s DVD copying software.  This copier circumvented the DVD’s DRM, which is illegal under the DMCA, but then put new DRM in its place so users couldn’t share their movies.

Now, copying for personal use or backup is considered legal and a fair use of a copyrighted work. But because of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention laws, you can’t backup the DVD you legally purchased.

What’s silly, is Real’s copier cost $20 and used DRM making it a somewhat worthless copier, especially when there are dozens of free DVD copiers without any DRM. So by suing, the movie studios 1) promoted that people could copy movies and 2) sent them to free, DRM-less alternatives.

For their other lawsuit, movie studios won their appeal against Kaleidescape, which is basically an iPod for movies (or a DVD jukebox, if you will), but costs $10,000.  Movie studios of course feared this system would be a haven for piracy, but again, it’s $10,000. It’s for high-end movie fans with lots of DVDs who don’t want to keep switching discs. They backup their discs on Kaleidescape and then watch them on their TV. But because of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention laws, users can’t do what they are otherwise legally allowed to do. And the movie industry gets to stamp out innovation and technology that is trying to help make DVDs and movies more valuable.

How are legal remedies helping here? The movie studios are trying to crush three different companies who are trying to help make DVDs more valuable at a time when consumers are showing DVDs are less worth purchasing.

Hulu has been highly praised for its sleek design and vast amounts of commercial content, stifling nay-sayers by bringing competing networks together to share content and audiences. But these networks can’t seem to understand how important convenience is to attracting customers away from piracy and file-sharing.

I already wrote about Hulu getting into a technology pissing contest with Boxee, trying to prevent the media center software from making it more convenient to watch Hulu.  This was likely meant to prevent consumers from watching Hulu on their televisions.  Now Hulu has blocked the PS3 web browser and the Windows Mobile Skyfire browser from viewing Hulu content.  None of these browsers changed Hulu content – all the advertising was still in place.  Hulu likely is blocking these sources simply to give the content providers more control – and allowing them to use the television and mobile phone as addition revenue streams.  But this hurts everyone. Consumers loose the convenience of Hulu and go back to piracy (where they can download and watch content however they choose) or they find other content served in their preferred medium. Hulu looses audience and spends resources hurting consumer value rather than increasing it.  Consumers can’t be forced into consuming content like the networks prefer. Giving the consumers choice is the only way to compete and grow.

Controversy swirled last week on allegations that Last.fm’s parent company CBS gave the RIAA user data for possible use in civil and criminal cases. All those involved in the story have denied these allegations, though Techcrunch stands by the story.

It’s impossible to filter the he-said she-said right now, so instead let’s look at all the good that can come from the RIAA looking at Last.fm’s data. First, it’ll be almost impossible to make any case based on the data – Last.fm shows what music people listen to, but not the source (whether its legal or pirated). Instead, the RIAA could use this massive amount of data on real listening behavior to find new revenue streams and marketing opportunities. The RIAA could see exactly who likes one thing and then listens to another, helping to plan concert schedules and other events (like they already do with piracy data).

What would be even better is if the music industry took this data and used it to find new musicians and bands that fit the listening tastes of music fans (the ones listening). Using actual user actions can be much more efficient than focus groups or other market testing, but rarely is that data available. Of course, this is another benefit of the internet’s cheap and easy distribution – easy market testing. Post a new song to Last.fm or YouTube and see what happens. Do a little self promotion and you might have the next Susan Boyle on your label.

Of course, the RIAA won’t do any this. They’d much rather claim they’ve stopped suing people then continuing on suing. More money there than actually finding new business models.

After my IP class last week, a classmate and I continued our debate.  He said something that stuck with me: “Companies won’t leave money on the table.”  But in many cases, companies do leave money on the table. Sometimes the risk isn’t worth the reward, but sometimes it’s sheer stubbornness.

I mentioned Farhad Manjoo’s article about why there is no iTunes for a movies a few weeks ago.  The reason, according to Manjoo, is there are too many contracts to renegotiate and too many people to get permission from to make an all-you-can-download movie service cost effective.  This is not because it’s actually expensive to make (all those BitTorrent sites seem to manage). It’s because the variety of rights holders demand too much money.  Rights holders over value their copyright (or patent other cases).  They demand more money than someone can make selling another product (like a download service).  Instead of getting paid, nothing gets done or sold, meaning everyone leaves money on the table.

Want a nice, clean consumer example? iTunes introduced variable pricing for music at the demand of the record companies.  Record companies could choose a lower 69 cent price, the regular 99 cent price, and a $1.29. Few chose the lower price, pushing popular and new songs to the higher $1.29.  Early results show the labels are losing money from the decrease in sales – unit sales have dropped to the point where actual revenue is lower than when prices were 99 cents. Don’t say they weren’t warned.

The examples are numerous, from newspapers threatening Google even though its sends them tons of free traffic to monetize to Warner Music demanding more money from YouTube and music games like Guitar Hero, ignoring the huge promotional benefit they get from both.  TV shows like the Wonder Years can’t appear on DVD or TV because of the over-priced music. Other shows have changed the music, from Dawson’s Creek to WKRP in Cincinnati.

In the patent world, having too many patents in one area is called a patent thicket and can make it hard for research because it requires so many different licenses (and too many companies over valuing their intellectual property) that it becomes cost-prohibitive to research either from licensing or lawsuits.  Some companies collect their patents to allow products to be made, but these patent pools often do more harm than good. This is even hampering drug research:

Peter Ringrose, chief scientific officer at Bristol-Myers, has said there are more than 50 proteins possibly involved in cancer that the company was not working on because the patent holders either would not allow it or were demanding unreasonable royalties.

Yes, I went there. You might die because greedy companies refuse to take money.

In all seriousness, intellectual property not only gives monopoly rights to a single entity, but it also comes a sense of entitlement that seems to hurt the rights holder and everyone down the supply chain, including consumers.  This is because rights holders significant over-value their own intellectual property.  Much of the value from content comes from how it reaches the consumer, whether on DVD, TV, or some innovative package.  Pricing yourself out of these products does not make your content more valuable – it devalues it because consumers don’t experience it.  Companies are leaving money on the table, not just from the initial royalties, but from the future revenue made by future sales of products based on new fans or new innovations.

I haven’t been a fan of the Writers Guild.  It seems the group is more interested in hording control rather than making the entertainment industry stronger and more profitable.  The most recent example is the Writers Guild’s outrage that ABC asked for viewer stories and input on their new sitcom, “In the Motherhood.” ABC initially asked for ideas on their website, saying ideas might be used as “inspiration.” This was a wonderful idea to engage a target audience, making them feel like a part of the new show and more eager to watch it hoping their ideas inspire.

But the Writers Guild wants none of that engagement. Claiming the idea submissions were not allowed under their contract, ABC removed the inspiration language from its website, though it still asks for ideas.

Again, the Writers Guild is holding back an innovative effort from ABC to make a TV show more exciting and engaging by building a community of viewers.

The New York Times claims the new video game Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars is “one of the most important” because of its story telling and maturity.

But really, it’s just because this is a violent video game on a stereotypically kiddie and girlie gaming system, the Nintendo DS. The article praises game developer Rockstar and Nintendo for being “bold” and making a “vital statement to the public” that video games are not just for children.

Didn’t we already know this?

How is it bold of Nintendo for approving one of the best-selling video game series of all time to make a game exclusively for their system, almost certain to sell millions of copies. GTA is a safe-bet, not bold. And as amazing as Chinatown Wars is, it’s not a “crucial moment in the maturation of the gaming industry.” It’s a well-known franchise in an industry more known for violence than child-friendly fare. The New York Times itself has pushed flawed research about how all this violence is harmful.

Video games are still maturing yes, and Chinatown Wars is a helpful step to spreading the rich storytelling potential of the medium. But it’s a miniature version of the also adult GTA IV released only a year ago. Just as adult and arguably more visually spectacular. Adult is not always maturity.  Video games can be mature without violence, but talking animals and magic spells don’t get the same headlines as blood and gore.

I recognize the DS itself has expanded the video game market. Yay. It’s more than four years old. About time the New York Times realized violence can sometimes make good storytelling.