[mikeybaby]

I don't know, other than to agree that content is where the value resides.
The method of distribution of that content is, in my mind, the real issue.
I feel the current video providers (ABC, NBC, etc.) have much more power than the record guys have (or had), due the fact that the video providers also have tie-ins with the networks.
For example, I watch CNBC, which is tied to NBC since both are owned by GE.
OTOH, the record guys thought that their monopolies were unassailable, too.
YouTube is a new wrinkle also.
The conventional (ie., Hollywood, if that can be called conventional) thinking is that only big budget films can succeed. Along those lines, I think films like "The Blair Witch Project" and "300" and "The Passion of the Christ" argue against that "wisdom".
Should be fascinating to watch.

[amchugh]

The Passion of the Christ budget, $30,000,000 (estimated) 300 budget $60,000,000 (estimated), The Blair Witch Project budget $35,000 (estimated)

The first two qualify as big budget for me, but I tend to watch more comedies, period pieces and indie flicks. So I might be biased. Certainly they are no Waterworld or Titanic (thank God).

People talk about YouTube like you can catch any show in the world posted, but they've done a good job recently of cracking down on a lot of the shows I used to watch online. It is a lot harder to find clips for the Office for example.

The record companies controlled the airwaves through "the Network", a sort of middle man cutout of promoters who handled payola. It got out of the record companies control though, and payola prices to get songs played spiralled upwards. Ironically, this raises barrier to entry costs for indie labels who want a big act and protects the oligopoly of the big labels. Read Hit Men by Fred Dannen for more details

[amchugh]

The conventional wisdom of Hollywood that big budget films are more successful is a lie to get investors to pony up money for a bad rate of return.