You're an old Washington hand. How do you explain what happened when Congress threw in the towel on SOPA/PIPA?
Here's the good news: No one's arguing about whether the theft of intellectual property needs to be dealt with. The question becomes, how?
[The technology community] globalized the issue, made it [about] freedom of speech and breaking the Internet. It's [rather] a question of whether the hard work of the creative community ought to be protected .
I say this respectfully: There were those in the technology community who chose Hollywood as an opponent, when we're just one of a number of industries being assaulted by theft of our intellectual property. Because we're the opponent, because it was hard for us to respond in a space where we didn't have much of a presence, for all those reasons I think you ended up with the result you did.
You don't think provisions of SOPA/PIPA were, as some said, dangerous, lopsided, inadequate, overreaching?
I think those words are excessive. I've never seen a perfect piece of legislation; there's a normal process [that] inevitably changes legislation. This was not a normal experience, people [were] commenting on a bill not in final form. While there may be legitimacy to some of the criticism, it might have been premature criticism. Technology needs content, and content needs technology. Consumers want choices. I think it's incumbent on the two communities to work together.
Could future legislation be crowd-sourced all along?
This was a watershed event in terms of how [official] business is done. Frankly, I think it's worthwhile to see that the process is going to be more democratic and more people can be involved in expressing themselves about critical pieces of legislation. That much is never going to be the same. It doesn't mean you won't still have congressional hearings and the like. People being involved is great, [but you have to] make sure all sides can be heard, so that people can understand the complexity of the issues.
Can Silicon Valley make common cause with Hollywood?
I believe they can. The communities — in the same state, a car ride away from each other — [must] figure out how best to do this and then ask Congress, where appropriate, to codify that understanding.
Critics think Hollywood is waging a rear-guard action. Does the business model need changing even as the product needs protecting?
The idea of being “old media” — this business has produced digital animation, IMAX screens, 3D production, surround sound. Hollywood is anything but old media, in my view. [It] still believe[s] the theatrical experience is critical. And [it's] anxious to make sure that consumers who want that product on iPads or BlackBerrys or computers are going to be able to do so.
So much on the Internet appears to be free. What do you tell people who think there's no harm done?
The product doesn't make itself. You only have to sit around until the end — the credits sometimes take as long as the movie! Those are hardworking people; the average salary is about $55,000 a year; 90% of the jobs are blue collar, from that person selling popcorn to that truck driver, that makeup artist.
We bring back more money to the United States than aerospace, automobiles or agriculture. [But] it isn't just economics. It's an accessible, democratic form of culture, and people need to understand how critical this is.
“The Hurt Locker” is a great example of a great film about an important issue. By the time that film went to DVD, it had been stolen so many times it was a money-loser, despite having won the Academy Award. [You can't] get people to invest in the “Hurt Lockers” of the future [if] you can't get back the investment you make.
In an agreement made last week, the Chinese will allow in more foreign IMAX and 3D movies a year and will pay filmmakers a higher percentage of box-office receipts.