In the end, it seems the software that former RealNetworks CEO Robert Glaser described as a “compelling and very responsible product that gives consumers a way to do something they have always wanted to do” was neither.

“We are gratified by the successful conclusion of this important matter,” MPAA General Counsel Daniel Mandil said in a statement. “Judge Patel’s rulings and this settlement affirm what we have said from the very start of this litigation: It is illegal to bypass the copyright protections built into DVDs designed to protect movies against theft. We will continue to vigorously pursue companies that attempt to bring these illegal circumvention products and devices to market.”

Below, a copy of Patel’s order:

RealDVD CourtOrder –

PREVIOUSLY:

• Judge: RealDVD Antitrust Case Real Stupid
• RealNetworks Still Barred From the DVD Backup Business. Why Does RealNetworks Want to Be in the DVD Backup Business?
• RealDVD Launch Buffering…Buffering…
• Rent. Rip. Restraining Order.
• StealDVD? Well, You Were Asking for It…
• Sue. Rent. Rip. Return.
• Rent. Rip. Return.

The MPAA “RealNetworks’ RealDVD should be called StealDVD,” said MPAA Executive Vice President and General Counsel Greg Goeckner in a statement. “RealNetworks knows its product violates the law and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s movie makers and the technology community. The major motion picture studios have been making major investments in technologies that allow people to access entertainment in a variety of new and legal ways. This includes online video-on-demand, download-to-own, as well as legitimate digital copies for storage and use on computers and portable devices that are increasingly being made available on or with DVDs. Our industry will continue on this path because it gives consumers greater choices than ever. However, we will vigorously defend our right to stop companies from bringing products to market that mislead consumers and clearly violate the law.”

“RealNetworks took this legal action to protect consumers’ ability to exercise their fair-use rights for their purchased DVDs,” the company said in a statement. “We are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases. For nearly 15 years RealNetworks has created innovative products that are fully legal, great for consumers, and respectful of the legitimate interests of content creators and rights holders. RealDVD follows in that tradition. We expect to successfully defend our right to make RealDVD available to consumers and consumers’ rights to use it.”

We’ll see, I guess. Clearly the silly little “RealDVD is for saving a DVD you own” disclaimer attached to the software isn’t going to cut it with Hollywood. I imagine we’ll be hearing from the Motion Picture Association of America before the day is out.

This week members of the House Judiciary Committee passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (called “PRO IP” groan…) Act of 2007, legislation that would create an “anti-piracy czar” at the White House level, a separate IP-enforcement division at the Justice Department and ratchet up already high civil penalties for copyright infringement.

The measure is backed by many of the most powerful politicians on the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers (D., Mich.), Lamar Smith (R., Texas) and “Hollywood” Howard Berman (D., Calif.), the content cartel and, of course, Zucker, who likes to tell everyone that it dramatically advances the cause of protecting innovation, technological invention and creativity.

Said Zucker, “This is such an important step in combating this incredibly serious piracy and counterfeiting problem that’s getting worse, not better.”

In Zucker’s eyes, maybe. But not in the eyes of consumer folks like Google Senior Copyright Counsel William Patry who calls Pro IP “the most outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the U.S.” and consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge which feels it is in sore need of adjustment.:

This bill takes already extraordinary copyright damages and increases them, expanding the threat of litigation intended to stifle competition and innovation. … Increasing penalties is one of the least necessary, and quite possibly counterproductive, actions the committee could take, particularly when current law is adequate to deal with most infringement issues and because the higher penalties serve only to force faster and larger settlements potentially from innovators. … Instead of following the course of this bill, the committee should look to the future, to a more realistic and rational copyright regime that can adapt pre-VCR copyright laws to a post-YouTube world.”

After a prolonged, and quite nasty, legal battle with the MPAA, TorrentSpy is shutting down. “The legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile,” reads a statement posted to the site’s front page by founder Justin Bunnell. “We spent the last two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending the rights of our users and ourselves… [W]e now feel compelled to provide the ultimate method of privacy protection for our users–permanent shutdown.”

Turns out Benjamin Disraeli was wrong. There are four, not three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics and Motion Picture Association of America piracy figures.

The MPAA this week admitted that a 2005 study that blamed a significant portion of the film industry’s domestic losses on college movie pirates was erroneous. Touted as “the most accurate and detailed assessment of the film industry’s worldwide losses to piracy,” the study (PDF), described piracy as “the biggest threat to the U.S. motion picture industry” and attributed an astonishing 44% of MPAA company losses in the U.S. to college students.

Hollywood was quick to seize on that statistic and used it as the foundation of a campaign against file-sharing on college networks that would ultimately result in the Curb Illegal Downloading on College Campuses Act, the demonization of the “Top 25 Piracy Schools” and the Higher Education Reform Act, which ties federal higher-education funding to efforts to combat piracy.

Trouble is, that 44% figure was a gross overstatement. In fact, the MPAA now says, just 15% of the movie industry’s domestic losses can be attributed to campus piracy. How did it happen that the study nearly tripled that figure? “Human error,” says the MPAA.

Ah. Well that explains it, then. Makes you wonder about all those other sky-is-falling piracy studies we’ve been bombarded with over the years though, doesn’t it?

“If the reports are true that the new, corrected numbers are way below the initial and highly publicized earlier numbers, then the MPAA owes an apology to the campus community,” Kenneth Green, director of the Campus Computing Project, told Inside Higher Ed. “The corrected MPAA numbers clearly confirm what many of us have said for a very long time: that P2P piracy is primarily a consumer broadband issue, not primarily a campus network issue, and that colleges and universities are more concerned and far more engaged in efforts to stem illegal P2P activity than are consumer broadband providers.”

Turns out Benjamin Disraeli was wrong. There are four, not three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics and Motion Picture Association of America piracy figures.

The MPAA this week admitted that a 2005 study that blamed a significant portion of the film industry’s domestic losses on college movie pirates was erroneous. Touted as “the most accurate and detailed assessment of the film industry’s worldwide losses to piracy,” the study (PDF), described piracy as “the biggest threat to the U.S. motion picture industry” and attributed an astonishing 44% of MPAA company losses in the U.S. to college students.

Hollywood was quick to seize on that statistic and used it as the foundation of a campaign against file-sharing on college networks that would ultimately result in the Curb Illegal Downloading on College Campuses Act, the demonization of the “Top 25 Piracy Schools” and the Higher Education Reform Act, which ties federal higher-education funding to efforts to combat piracy.

Trouble is, that 44% figure was a gross overstatement. In fact, the MPAA now says, just 15% of the movie industry’s domestic losses can be attributed to campus piracy. How did it happen that the study nearly tripled that figure? “Human error,” says the MPAA.

Ah. Well that explains it, then. Makes you wonder about all those other sky-is-falling piracy studies we’ve been bombarded with over the years though, doesn’t it?

“If the reports are true that the new, corrected numbers are way below the initial and highly publicized earlier numbers, then the MPAA owes an apology to the campus community,” Kenneth Green, director of the Campus Computing Project, told Inside Higher Ed. “The corrected MPAA numbers clearly confirm what many of us have said for a very long time: that P2P piracy is primarily a consumer broadband issue, not primarily a campus network issue, and that colleges and universities are more concerned and far more engaged in efforts to stem illegal P2P activity than are consumer broadband providers.”

Tech is getting a lot of attention in Hollywood, so talking about online video is a key area for the independent filmmakers who are here this year.

Topics on the panel were wide-ranging, including: social networking, politics, the writers’ strike and the need for more broadband.

Better yet, here’s the description of the panel:

“The writing is on the wall–the industry must adapt to new media or face extinction. Today’s studios and independents are finally embracing the challenge of porting content and revenue to new distribution strategies. Join Hollywood power brokers and new media superstars to discuss their strategies for the Web.”

The panelists included Ted Sarandos (Netflix), Dmitry Shapiro (founder and CEO of Veoh.com), Dan Glickman (MPAA), Jason Kilar (CEO of Hulu.com), Mike Volpi (CEO of Joost.com), Erik Flanagan (EVP Digital Media MTV Networks/Comedy Central/South Park Studios) and tech strategy adviser Phil Lelyveld.

In other words, me and seven guys, which is about par for the course in Silicon Valley!

Here’s the video:

And here is my video touring the festival.

I just got to Park City, Utah, for my annual visit (well, this will be my third year here) to the famous film festival that takes place in this lovely mountain resort.

While I like a good movie as much as the next person, I am no film aficionado, nor do I have a screenplay stuffed in a drawer, nor do I hope someday to direct. I do like celebrity sightings, of course.

I am here because the Sundance Film Festival has understood early and often that technology is becoming increasingly important to the future of the film industry.

Because of that, they’ve been expanding additional offerings in the digital arena with panels throughout the festival.

The panel I will moderate is a great one about online video, called “Webolution!–Hollywood Adapts to the Web.” It will take place tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. at the New Frontier on Main here.

Here’s the description:

“The writing is on the wall–the industry must adapt to new media or face extinction. Today’s studios and independents are finally embracing the challenge of porting content and revenue to new distribution strategies. Join Hollywood power brokers and new media superstars to discuss their strategies for the Web.”

The panelists include Ted Sarandos (Netflix), Dmitry Shapiro (founder and CEO of Veoh.com), Dan Glickman (MPAA), Jason Kilar (CEO of Hulu.com), Mike Volpi (CEO of Joost.com), Erik Flanagan (EVP Digital Media MTV Networks/Comedy Central/South Park Studios) and tech strategy adviser Phil Lelyveld.

Videos, of course, to come, along with visits with various tech players here, who are increasing in number annually. And, maybe, a Hollywood celeb or two.

But how much is too much when it comes to shelling out a little more for convenience, and are you really getting what you pay for? This week, I tested what could be thought of as the ultimate convenience: a box that plugs into your television and Internet connection, letting you download movies whenever you want to watch them. The box costs $399 and doesn’t include the price of movies, which must be rented or purchased for fees as high as $4 or $20 each, respectively.

This box, called Vudu, comes from a Silicon Valley company of the same name (www.vudu.com). Vudu’s biggest strengths are its easy setup, good picture quality and simple user interface, easily navigated using a scroll-wheel remote control.

Vudu costs $399 plus prices to rent or own each movie title.

If the director yelled “Cut!” right here, Vudu would be a box-office smash. But actually using this device is just one problem after another. For starters, though Vudu says it has relationships with the major Hollywood studios, many of the 5,000 titles it offers don’t seem to be popular by mainstream standards. Lots of them are old or obscure. For instance, you won’t find any of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, but how about a 1984 sci-fi/fantasy movie called “The Ice Pirates,” instead?

If you do find a movie that you’d like to watch, you must have a bandwidth speed of at least two megabits per second to download it instantly; millions of broadband homes have slower connections than that. Vudu offers to measure your bandwidth on its home page before you buy it. I tested Vudu for a week on a typical home-type DSL line, and my connection only clocks about 1.5 Mbps, so it took me about 45 minutes to download each movie.

While Vudu’s $399 price tag might take some getting used to, its fees for buying or renting each movie could be harder to swallow after a month’s worth of use: as much as $80 if you bought one top-tier movie a week. Worse, you have to pay in advance. Rather than charging your credit card on a pay-as-you-go basis, Vudu customers must choose a $20, $50 or $100 amount at setup from which movie fees are deducted. When your account hits $0, the amount selected at setup is charged and the debit process begins again.

On top of all this, Vudu relies on a peer-to-peer network system for faster downloading. So, essentially, this company is using your bandwidth to help it save money it would have otherwise spent on its own servers and bandwidth.

I set up Vudu in a snap, plugging it into three things: a wall outlet, the back of a high-definition Sony Bravia television and an Ethernet cord. Wireless connections won’t work with Vudu without a special “bridge” or a power-line adapter. Once Vudu turned on, a friendly voice guided me through setting it up, and I got started in minutes.

Vudu’s home screen is broken down into five menus: Find Movies, New Releases, My Movies, My Wish List and Info & Settings. I used the tiny remote, which fits perfectly in a hand, and rolled through menus using its scroll wheel. This wheel can be pressed down to select something, saving me from glancing down at the buttons. Also, Vudu uses an RF (radio frequency) antenna so you don’t have to point the remote at it.

In Find Movies, I looked through 18 genres, including biography, romance, family and historical. A sorting feature can filter movies by release date, MPAA rating, critics’ rating, studio, availability to rent and availability to own. An on-screen alphabet can be used to type in names of actors, directors or movie titles; the scroll wheel speeds up this process.

Parental controls, which are only accessible with a special code, can be set to block a child from buying or renting movies with certain ratings.

Vudu likes to think of itself as the instant-gratification alternative to running to the video store. But not many people I know still go to Blockbuster for a DVD; instead, they use mail-delivery services like Netflix. Compared with the 85,000 titles offered by Netflix, the selection at Vudu is pretty slim. A more similar comparison might be Amazon’s Unbox for TiVo, which has slightly less than 5,000 movies.

Though I couldn’t find numerous titles, I did discover plenty of movies I’d never heard of. A search for last year’s “Casino Royale” returned Robert DeNiro’s “Casino” from 1995, as well as two Asian films, “Casino Tycoon” and “Casino Tycoon II.” Since I never saw Helen Mirren’s “The Queen,” I tried to find her Oscar-winning performance on Vudu. But the closest I came to royalty were “Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy,” an alternative name for the cheesy 1968 Jane Fonda sci-fi flick, and “Prom Queen,” which fell under the Gay and Lesbian category. I tried to laugh this off by watching Steve Carell’s “Evan Almighty.” But typing “E-V-A…” into a title search only returned “Deliver Us From Eva,” an R-rated 2003 comedy starring LL Cool J.

I searched and found the same three titles on Netflix, though Amazon Unbox only had “Evan Almighty.”

I downloaded two romantic comedies: “Music and Lyrics,” starring Hugh Grant, a $4 rental, and a Diane Keaton movie called “Because I Said So,” which I bought for $20. I also rented “Zodiac,” a suspense movie starring Jake Gyllenhaal, for $4. Movies that you own never expire, but rented flicks must be watched within 30 days and expire 24 hours after you start watching.

In the case of each movie, the original estimates for time to download were daunting; two started out by estimating “Available in a few hours” and one movie’s estimate read “Available in a few days.” But all three finished downloading in about 45 to 50 minutes. Only one movie can download at a time.

While watching movies, the remote’s scroll wheel can be used to fast forward or rewind scenes. Scrolling faster moves you farther ahead or back (the fastest jump moves you 30 minutes); the slowest scroll moves you ahead or back five seconds.

Vudu might cast a spell on users who don’t mind its poor selection and high-bandwidth requirement to deliver instant downloads. But for me, the convenience of Vudu is no convenience at all. As is, its lackluster selection, high prices and slow downloads make it more of a letdown than anything else.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

This week I tested Jaman.com, a Web site that gives users the chance to download independent and international movies from the Web directly to their computers. It also serves as a social networking forum where movie watchers can read one another’s reviews, write their own comments that run alongside the film, and join groups with people who have similar tastes in movies. Jaman (pronounced jah-mahn), has 1,800 titles. It charges $1.99 for rentals, which can be watched for up to seven days, and $4.99 to buy a movie outright.

Jaman.com’s home page (above) suggests movies for downloading, such as ‘Inside Iraq: The Untold Stories,’ and comments can be seen in a side panel while the film is being watched (below).

Jaman isn’t alone in the online movie downloading business, and its competitors boast bigger selections. Just this year Netflix Inc., known for popularizing DVD rentals through the mail, started offering its own movie downloads. So as to encourage this new method, Netflix builds movie-watching hours into its monthly plans, which range from $5 to $24 and include a certain number of hours during which downloaded movies can be watched. Of the 85,000 DVD titles available on Netflix.com, 4,000 titles can be downloaded.

Blockbuster Inc., which followed Netflix into the DVD mailing business, showed an interest in the online downloading method last month when it acquired Movielink LLC, a movie downloading service previously owned by Hollywood’s major studios.

And Apple Inc., which began selling films for $10 to $15 a year ago on its iTunes Store, offers over 500 movies. Amazon is in the game, too, as is Microsoft.

But Jaman hopes its niche films and viewer-comments system will set it apart.

I took a close look at Jaman, downloading movies from various countries, posting comments about them on the Jaman.com site and reading what others thought of the films. I used a Mac and two Windows computers running Microsoft’s Vista and XP operating systems, and tried Jaman on all three major Web browsers. The site itself can feel a bit overwhelming, jumbling a lot of text together on pages that lack a clean central place where every element comes together. More than once, films blacked out in midplay, and Jaman’s community aspect didn’t seem as well-organized or integrated as I had hoped.

Jaman has another major downside: It forces every user to designate some of his or her bandwidth to distribute movies for the company, using a peer-to-peer program. Community network setups like this aren’t unheard of; Skype and many others use such setups. But these other companies are often free, while Jaman is charging users for movies while simultaneously using their bandwidth to reduce strain on its own servers. Participation in the peer-to-peer network is required while downloading a movie but can be stopped at all other times. Even so, this is a real chink in Jaman’s armor.

Jaman.com drops users into a site where five movies are showcased, showing their trailers one after another. Other titles can be searched according to region, categories and genres, top movies or films made and submitted by users. I skimmed through flicks from Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, North America, Europe and Latin America. A useful feature displayed details about a movie when I held my cursor over its title including a description, the movie’s Jaman rating (out of five stars), duration and genre. Jaman doesn’t sort movies by duration, which would have saved me time while I was looking for a short film to download for a cross-country flight.

I was surprised to notice that none of the movies prominently displayed Motion Picture Association of America ratings. Jaman explained that these data are buried within a sub-menu of details about a movie, but many films didn’t list ratings — even those with MPAA ratings.

Three rentals come included with each Jaman membership, which was free and quickly obtained in my experience, though a friend of mine had trouble when he didn’t receive Jaman’s email verification with two different addresses. I downloaded and watched movies from Mexico, the United Kingdom and North America, and watched a 21-minute Japanese short film that streamed directly from the site and didn’t require downloading. Community comments and reviews helped me pick movies, especially Jaman’s own one-line summary that it calls “Our Take.”

To download and watch movies from Jaman, users must first download the Jaman player. But this player doesn’t work with the Web site as smoothly as it should. For example, after reading various reviews of movies, I found a comedy from the U.K. called “Nobody The Great,” and opted to rent it. I downloaded the Jaman player but it didn’t recognize that I already signed in and chose the movie to rent on the Web site. I started over by signing in, finding the film and choosing the rental option, this time using the player.

“Nobody The Great” turned out to be an amusing story about two English guys who find supposed terrorists in their home but are more concerned about not ruining an evening planned with two women. The film is only 47 minutes long and 753 megabytes, but it took about two hours to download using a broadband connection. The most maddening thing about downloading the movie using Jaman was that the estimated time until completion kept changing dramatically — one moment it read 224 minutes, the next 69 minutes, then 22, 40 and 17. Other downloads followed this same wacky pattern, some worse than others.

After watching a movie, I was prompted by Jaman to rate the movie or to write a review about it. Jaman uses email messages with links to join discussions with others who saw the same movie. These discussions groups are more like blogs, with each person’s comment listed as a different post. Some of the movies that I watched hadn’t been reviewed in a while, so I wasn’t as inspired to add my comments as I might have been if there was a live discussion taking place.

This staleness was experienced again in one of my favorite Jaman features: comments that run on-screen during a film if you’re online. These can be hidden so as not to distract the viewer, but I found some of the comments really interesting. For example, while watching a subtitled Mexican movie from 1995 called “El Callejon De Los Milagros” starring Salma Hayek, comments appeared roughly every 10 minutes from a user named Cinequest. I later learned that Cinequest represented the Northern California motion picture institute of the same name and that the comments left weren’t live but were stuck to the movie so that anyone watching it could see them. I was free to leave my own comments, but I didn’t have quite as much to say about camera angles as Cinequest. The film director’s comments can also be seen here.

Jaman says that its road map includes plans for live comments, which would encourage more interaction with others as if watching a movie with friends.

Though I didn’t spend a majority of my time there, Jaman’s Community section seemed a little weak. Groups like “Bollywood 101″ and “Cult Movies” had members and comments left by these members, but still seemed somewhat disconnected from films. For example, preview clips of certain movies were posted to share with the group, but most of the comments made by the group weren’t related to the clips.

Jaman introduced me to new films that I wouldn’t otherwise have found. But its peer-to-peer system and its overall lack of real-time comments were frustrating. I’d also like to see Jaman reorganize the look of its site so it doesn’t feel so cluttered.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

“Sometimes even superheroes need a little help fighting the bad guys,” said Glickman. “We are taking all necessary steps to catch film thieves in the act and we are grateful to the theater managers, security guards, projectionists and even movie patrons themselves, who alerted law enforcement.”

Thing is, pirates still managed to cam the film and circulate it online as it arrived in theaters. So what good did the movie industry’s efforts really do? “Cases like this make it hard to divine the precise relationship between online piracy and Hollywood’s revenue,” Jon Healey writes in the Los Angeles Times. “These days, the first wave of online piracy is sustained by only one or two cams; once a release group has beaten the rest of the pack to a movie, the competition shifts to the next title (and, later, to be the first to release a bootleg of the DVD). So a single decent cam of Spidey 3 getting onto the Net was enough to feed the movie piracy scene. Nevertheless, the movie is well on its way to shattering box-office records.”

“Sometimes even superheroes need a little help fighting the bad guys,” said Glickman. “We are taking all necessary steps to catch film thieves in the act and we are grateful to the theater managers, security guards, projectionists and even movie patrons themselves, who alerted law enforcement.”

Thing is, pirates still managed to cam the film and circulate it online as it arrived in theaters. So what good did the movie industry’s efforts really do? “Cases like this make it hard to divine the precise relationship between online piracy and Hollywood’s revenue,” Jon Healey writes in the Los Angeles Times. “These days, the first wave of online piracy is sustained by only one or two cams; once a release group has beaten the rest of the pack to a movie, the competition shifts to the next title (and, later, to be the first to release a bootleg of the DVD). So a single decent cam of Spidey 3 getting onto the Net was enough to feed the movie piracy scene. Nevertheless, the movie is well on its way to shattering box-office records.”

What’s not to love about more “shaming videos,” as New York Times columnist Virginia Heffernan calls them in her “Screens” blog, which is a regular feature on the New York Times Web site. This week, she points to a video of former “Baywatch” star David Hasselhoff in a drunken stupor, which was shot by–wait for it–his daughter. It’s an embarrassing moment for Hasselhoff, a recovering alcoholic, but such fare is now pretty inevitable with the ubiquity of Web videos, as the astute Heffernan writes:

With all this child-parent surveillance–and the straight-to-online capacity to go very public whenever one records the Hoff or, say, Alec Baldwin mouthing off–will celebrity children no longer have to write “Mommie Dearest”-style memoirs, as their tales of woe will now be meted out to the world in leaked voicemails and uploaded videos? Will, moreover, camera phones and other recording-and-publishing devices put to rest thorny questions about the accuracy of memories of childhood abuse, including sexual abuse?”

It’s a shame that the blog by Heffernan, who also writes for the print edition, is buried so deeply in the New York Times online stew. It is always interesting to see what her eclectic mind will choose for the online column, which focuses on “here-goes-nothing online” Internet video, from Hoff hijinks to funny Norwegian videos to sappy clips from “Gilmore Girls.”

Says the author in her mission statement: “‘Screens’ will find, review and make sense of all those senseless new images: Web video, viral video, user-driven video, custom interactive video, embedded video ads, Web-based VOD, broadband television, diavlogs, vcasts, vlogs, video podcasts, mobisodes, Webisodes, mashups and more.” Not so senseless to me.

Also, a nice succinct essay by Matt Marshall of VentureBeat on the the implications of the Digg revolt and how such an event is likely to occur more often. He writes (and is right, too):

If there’s one lesson learned, it’s that the Web tends toward radical openness, and that aggressive censorship is futile.”

And, one of the more insightful writers on one of my favorite sites, Mike Masnick of Techdirt, has a good question he asks of the Motion Picture Association of America. Masnick asserts in the piece that the powerful lobbying group makes up film-piracy numbers, this time specifically about Canada and its role in camcording piracy. More important, writes Masnick:

Insiders will still leak copies (that are much better in quality than camcorded ones) and they’ll still be available on the Internet. Instead of focusing on pointless legal solutions, the industry would have been better off making the movie-going experience better so that people actually want to go out to the movies. In the meantime, though, why doesn’t anyone ask the movie industry to actually back up the numbers they put forth?”

That’s the kind of challenge former MPAA head Jack Valenti would have taken up and run with. The spitfire lobbyist, whose personal style and zest for a good political fight were legendary, died last month after decades of passionately defending the movie industry. While many did not agree with his aggressive, defend-the-fort-at-all-costs manner, he was also always willing to mix it up and, in fact, was onstage at our very first D conference in May 2003.

He delivered (with his patented sly smile, of course) one of my favorite moments when he told Excite and also JotSpot Co-Founder Joe Kraus that he was essentially a thief and perhaps even a communist for compiling a personal video for his newborn that contained a lot of very short movie clips. Kraus had created it to show just how stringent the laws were, and it was, if truth be told, a shameless attempt to get Valenti riled up.

It worked in a great way that resulted in an insightful debate on the important issue. And, more important, thinking back on it, it makes one realize what a shame it is not to have Valenti around anymore in these even more interesting times.