Big Entertainment Wants to Party Like It's 1996

I humbly agree. Does it take so much to realize that the old supply/value chain won't work anymore? At least, not in the same way that it used to? We're still waiting for that smart aleck (MBA grad or not) who can make a revolutionary business model for the entertainment industry in this day and age.

If I may make an unsolicited prediction: the company who champions and successfully markets the distribution model that juanserranos alludes to will make big bucks. That company can feed off content produced by independent moviemakers and, if they can bear to swallow their pride, the big studios. The company just has to make sure that it rests on a big user base so that producers will go for them. If this happens, the value chain will see a sharp distinction between producers and distributors, as opposed to big entertainment companies covering these two activities. The end result like retailing for entertainment products.

I'm my humble opinion, the big media corporations should stop all the money spent in building a legal structure to attack domestic users of the internet. Let's face it, will sound bitter and sour, but the industry needs to re-shape its own style of distributing content.

Steven Sorderberg did a multiple release of his project "Bubble", an small budget production (less than $2 million) non famous actors in the cast, etc... The experiment done by the director was really simple: launch at the same time one movie in all the available formats of distribution HDNet, DVD, It opened in selected theaters. The movie didn't really make any big noise in the box office, actually this film did make less than 10% in tickets sales (domestic gross) of its actual production cost ($1.6 million). The National Association of Theatre Owners president and CEO John Fithian indirectly called the film's release model "the biggest threat to the viability of the cinema industry today." (full article here)

The answer of Soderberg it's included in the commentary track of the DVD: "I don't think it's going to destroy the movie-going experience any more than the ability to get takeout has destroyed the restaurant business."

It's really cool see how the technology bring new opportunities to create great things in a more effective, precise, quick and easy way, but at the same time, the current technology (not even the future) allows to the industry to deliver media content at real and more affordable price to the consumer. The theater experience is embeded in the memory of pretty much any adult human on the western hemisphere. The problem is that the experience is facing a big threat with new gadgets that let the people re-create small versions of a movieplex room at home.

So, if a family can rent for one month (2 movies at the time) for less that what a couple paid for just two tickets (not including sodas, popcorn and candy bars), and have a wonderful evening safe at home... Do you think that the movie industry is not aware of that...???

The big studios know how much money they are going to make in each project, before they started, what they forget is that the people is not going religiously to each movie release just because of the name of the actors, the people is getting more selective and able to decide what they want or not to watch.

The entertainment industry needs to think really deep, how they can come with new ways to distribute media to everybody, at different layers (Theaters, VOD, Pay-per-View, Mobile streaming, DVD, etc..), Affordable prices, that's the key word for Hollywood, the studio executives should learn the lesson of the others mass consumer sellers, like the fast food per example... 99¢ menu!!

A close college friend of mine told me once: "I going to the movies, if I see some flick that is really good, I wait for the DVD to buy it", that was back in 1999. A couple of days ago he told me something a little bit different: "Now, I rent the movie, if the kids and my wife like it, I possible buy it. Now if the movie is really awesome, I'll buy the Blu-Ray".

At what point did the enemy of freedom cease to be another nations army and became our own companies? and there is little real doubt this is what happened.

The RIAA and its lap dog organizations are cut from the same cloth as AIG and Goldman and GM - to big and too important to be constrained by the laws meant to deal with mere citizens. To powerful to be defeated by individuals in any case they might choose to bring.

and clearly the worst of the abuses brought by the RIAA and its like - the eventual backlash that will hinder legitimate companies in their legitimate business.

That means that even if someone is proven guiltry of pirating, in whichever way, his/her internet connection cannot be shut off

At least without a criminal trial.  At a criminal trial, everything, even life itself (depending on the country) can be removed for the right level of crime.

A trial is too costly, however.  And RIAA. much to its consternation, is finding out that trials don't always lead to success.

Much easier to lobby for baffling legalese they can twist whichever way they wish.

robjvargas:

Yes, we are on the same page here. This is a crucial issue of the matter. The user's malpractice (or fellony if you like) has to be proven and repeated.

Another important fact of the matter though is that broadband connection will be framed as a human right. That means that even if someone is proven guiltry of pirating, in whichever way, his/her internet connection cannot be shut off (for obvious reasons associated with the benefits of online economic activity and more). Of course he/she will have to face the consequences of his/her actions but switching off internet service will be excluded from the available options.

This has indeed serious policy and societal implications. Truly.

ktroulos:

It's an interesting quote from the FT that you have there.  But it, too, is clouding the issue, intentionally or not.

The statement you quote ends with: persistent copyright transgressors’ internet connections.

However, as Cory Doctorow already points out, that's not in the French proposal, or the New Zealand bill from which it springs.  The law requires only that an allegation occur.  It doesn't even have to be proven.  Three allegations, and the accused would find their Internet Access removed, without trial, criminal *or* civil.

I bring that up because I believe this is the very heart of the matter.  The Entertainment Industry presumes guilt.  Every proposal, every technology, every "standard" they've endorsed or lobbied towards is aimed towards the idea that the very act of copying is itself a crime (in their eyes, at least).

I am in complete support of paying for the work others have put into digital media.  I subscribe to Napster, myself.  If I want a piece of music, I buy it from there, when I can.  Because Napster permits me to use what I purchase, however I choose to use it, they are the payment model I support.  I can buy the song outright, and receive it as MP3 for my complete use, or I can subscribe to one of their "rental" models where I pay a monthly fee for unlimited use of the songs they have, so long as I pay that monthly fee.

So I'm *not* about revenge on the Entertainment Industry for their past evils.  I'm just sick of them presuming evils of me.

Highly relevant to the article are the discussions these days in EU regarding the three-strikes law to be passed (?) in France. Under this law's terms and conditions should a customer is warned for a third time of using/distributing pirated content, his internet connection will be terminated.

It is interesting however to see how EU is trying to respond to the matter. The following article provides good insight.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b38643de-3381-11de-8f1b-00144feabdc0.html

Here's a quote from the article:

"Framing internet access as a human right would effectively scupper the entertainment industry’s efforts to hamper illegal file sharing by threatening to cut off persistent copyright transgressors’ internet connections."

Okay, point taken. However, I'm not sure I fully agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I'm not yet sure that I see the same motivation here.

Mary, what do you call heavily armed agents breaking down doors, confiscating computer equipment, and arresting suspected copyists? That's violence.

Civil litigation also involves the use of violence; one disregards a subpoena at one's own peril.

All this legislation is a power grab by corporate entities to take over mechanisms of the state for their own profit.

Root Maniac: I was following your train of thought until you mentioned violence. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Coercion in legislation doesn't really qualify as state-mediated violence.

I think David's argument is well taken. But your first point -- that the entertainment industry marshals content from artists -- is a good one.

One artist I've had contact with refers to his band as the "goose that laid the golden egg." The point of charging for content is to keep the artists -- the goose -- laying those golden eggs. That does not mean not having free content, or holding fast to charging for everything. It does mean entertainment has to find better revenue models.