Sony's Michael Lynton relaxes his death grip on the Internet

Having endured a torrent of online abuse after blasting the Internet a couple of weeks ago, Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton has decided to take a mulligan. If you missed the original story, Lynton was on a panel at a May 14 breakfast hosted by the New Yorker and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications when he boldly stated: "I'm a guy who doesn't see anything good having come from the Internet." He added that the Web has "created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It's as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. 'Give it to me now,' and if you don't give to them for free, they'll steal it."

Most studio czars secretly feel the same way but rarely have the nerve to say it in public. Reaction from the blogosphere was swift. Software Interrupted's Dave Rosenberg wrote off Lynton's comments as "short-sighted and borderline absurd," saying that with leadership like this, Sony, which just announced a $1-billion loss, "only has itself to blame." Game Stooge's Jonah Falcon called Lynton "hysterically neo-Luddite," adding "maybe he should abandon online communication altogether, like e-mail, Web browsing, online conference calls, Netflix streaming video, the PlayStation Network...." Zero Paid's Drew Wilson was so convinced that Lynton was an overpaid, ignorant dolt that he mistakenly identified him as a record executive.

When I talked to Lynton the other day for a story about the collapse of the DVD market, he was still smarting from the barbed responses, believing that his comments were taken out of context. After gathering his thoughts, he's decided to make a second try at explaining himself, this time by writing a post for the Huffington Post, which of course -- irony alert! -- is one of the great Internet media success stories, proving that indeed some good things have come out of the Internet after all.

Lynton doesn't retreat from his pivotal point -- that most content creators, be they music, newspapers, movies or books -- have been seriously harmed by the Internet. But while he acknowledges that the Web has had a "transformative impact on our culture," he argues that someone needs to erect "reasonable boundaries -- rules of the road -- that can help promote the many positive attributes of Internet technology while curtailing its hugely damaging effects," especially at a time when many governments are subsidizing the spread of high-speed broadband Web access.

But who should do this? Is Lynton advocating that Congress pass laws that would protect artists and songwriters and filmmakers -- and presumably those of us bedraggled journalists laboring in the crumbling newspaper biz? Who would ensure that these safeguards wouldn't hinder innovation? Lynton is mum on the specifics except to say that he is opposed to censorship, taxation or burdensome government restrictions. But who besides government has the clout to enforce order in the chaotic world of the Web?

I agree with Lynton that "freedom without restraint is chaos." But I wish he had been more specific, since I'm in one of those endangered professions that has seen its business model collapse in recent years. I'm all for new rules of the road, since the road my profession is careening down is the road to ruin. But I'm also skeptical than Washington lawmakers -- who've proven over and over again to be under the influence of the most powerful nearby lobbyist -- would write a law that would serve the average citizen as well as the corporations with the deepest pockets.

 I'd like to hear your thoughts: Is the Internet, which clearly has allowed for an unprecedented rise in piracy, a threat to our most vibrant artistic culture? Or is it healthy to have fewer boundaries and less stringent rules as we wrestle with the many possibilities of new technology?

Photo: Michael Lynton. Credit: PRNews Foto/Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Comments

[Hyooj Dong]

People steal. Not the Internet.
Saying the Internet is responsible for piracy is like saying roads are responsible for car crashes.

idots!

[Old Man Dotes]

Sony Pictures is a buggy-whip manufacturer. The Internet is Henry Ford's Model T. Guess who's going to win, no matter how much Lynton squirms and screams?

Frankly, the sooner Big Media dies, the better. "Nothing good has come out of the Internet," huh? Maybe so, maybe no, but I look at the products of the RIAA and MPAA and wonder why 99% of everything they've released since the "beginning of the Connected Age" is crap. Honestly, most of it is so bad, you couldn't *pay* me to steal it.,

[greg]

Media companies did not invent the internet. Why do they think they deserve to control it? Instead of treating your CUSTOMERS as criminals (or turning them into criminals with foolish DRM schemes), why not give us what we want?

[Doug in Toronto]

Sorry there, Michael old chap, but you've conveniently forgotten one of the primary reasons why the Net was developed in the first place: to communicate. It was not developed to let a lot of fat, lazy executives gouge even bigger bonuses out of the populace at large. You and your suits will be out of business in very short order if you don't start recognizing that the world has changed, the old rules are obsolete and your business model has expired. "Freedom without restraint is chaos" may be true on the street, but online it's "chaos is the purest form of freedom".

[NVL]

I agree with Michael Lynton that the internet hasn't done a lot of good for the film industry. Piracy may be hurting the bottom line, but for me, the bigger issue is the cultural shift caused by the clutter of the internet age, which rewards big familiar (and often dumb) franchises instead of riskier, more original films. Finding new "rules of the road" should be about more than getting paid for every download -- it should be about changing the sturcture of our culture to reward quality instead of marketability.

The first and most obvious step is to create an easy way to download films legally -- not just a few titles, but entire libraries. This won't end piracy, but there are a lot of people who would pay for downloads if they could (just look at itunes). Hollywood needs to create a legal and easy way for people to download movies before it can credibly stop piracy.

Beyond that, Hollywood should look for alternatives to the exhibitor-driven theatrical distrubution model. Opening a film exclusively in theaters feels increasingly old-fashioned in this era of instant information. It also entrenches the primacy of marketablity over quality. Why not turn the system on its head, releasing films on DVD or as downloads and then releasing the most popular in theaters?

Finally, we need a better filtering system to separate the junk from the good stuff. The old system (mainstream media coverage, critics, awards) has lost its power, and the new system (blogs, user-written reviews, fan sites) leaves much to be desired. There is enormous opportunity for some sort of filter that helps people find the best content and participate in a common culture.

[James M]

I think these industries need to adapt, and they need to do so quickly. How about starting by getting YouTube to put a "buy now" link next to music videos? People will pay for good content, and I think piracy is often used as a screening process for music and video, particularly given the ever-decreasing quality of content coming out of the film/music industries. The problem is that it doesn't pay the studios to produce exclusively high quality content, nor does it pay to have their customers only give them money for stuff they like. Their solution? Litigate the fear into people to keep those prices high. Well, Michael, the Internet has given a voice to the people, one that you can't dampen. Intellectual property is evolving and these industries must do so as well.

Having said all of this, I think opt-in taxation (in return for immunity from civil/criminal liability) is a really good idea. Record labels won't make as much money (Sony certainly won't), but that's what happens when the consumer gets the upper-hand. And it's a good thing.

As for newspapers and journalists, I feel for you. I almost exclusively use online news sources, mainly from The Times (UK), Wired, The Guardian and The Independent, but I also have a lot syndicated using Google News. It's free and it's great, but if the advertising models aren't generating enough revenue, then it's time for a paid-for subscription-based service. It would be worth it, particularly if a system of one payment for many services could be agreed. A limited amount of content could even still be delivered free (say 5 story views per day) and supported by advertising.

[jbelkin]

Yea, unbelievable this guy still has a job - this guy is either incredibly stupid or really small minded. He literally is cut from the same cloth as the guy selling buggy whips 120 years lamenting that paved roads are "stupid." It's hard to believe they pay this guy to run anything - clearly he cannot see OPPORTUNITY only that he has to work harder ... boo hoo. This guy should be laughed at - clearly he is not earning his keep. Things change, get used to it. Consumers are ONLY filling a gap you REFUSE to provide or as noted, too dumb to fill. GET OUT OF THE WAY. Why pay a guy like this millions of dollars when he is clearly not qualified to lead a company - MAYBE that is the problem with the film industry - all these people who don't get the internet or only sees one tiny aspect when the bottom line is that people want to SEE YOUR PRODUCT - and when you do not deliver it, our DIY society and culture now will just figure a new path ... grow up and find some new employees who are not scared to do something instead of being a narrow minded whiner.

[Gore Al.]

Have you covered ARTEMIS ETERNAL yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXOwWC48PM&fmt=22