Hollywood vs. the Internet

Reason ^ | 29 apr 02 | Mike Godwin

[white trash redneck]

The Dems, led by Fritz Hollings, are pandering to their Hollywood donors here.

[ThinkDifferent]

Bump. The idea of Hollywood dictating what features computers are allowed to have is insane, but we can always count on Democrats to try to make the insane a reality.

[AFreeBird]

Users may well take the approach I would take: If computers and software start shipping in a hamstrung form, mandated by government, I?ll quit buying new equipment. Why trade in last year?s feature-rich laptop for a new one that, while faster, has fewer capabilities?

Ditto!

Lotus 1-2-3's copy protection scheme's nearly killed it.

[medved]

What you do if this thing ever passes, is run, not walk, to the next two or three marketpro shows in your area and spend as much money as you can afford on the last of the current generation of hard disks, cdrom drives etc. etc.

Imagine being in the business of selling "pre-ban" cdroms, "pre-ban" hard disks and what not a year or two later? I mean, any kind of a pre-ban firearm sells for two or three times what it ought to sell for...

[medved]

Forgot to mention smuggling...

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

One technologist for News Corporation who is working on a watermark-based DRM scheme says he thinks Napster signals the end of the music industry.

The music industry has a few good points but by and large they have introduced trash and debasement into our culture. They resisted the most minimal user warning labels (i.e., printing the words to the songs on the cover of an album) for years and have held all the power over artists and composers. If they become a "cottage industry," too d@mn bad.

Copyrights are good; blanket restrictions on technology are bad. The consolation is the the Congress is so technology-ignorant that their legislation will be obsolete and useless even as it is written. Technology (that is, 1,000,000 geeks working full time to create technical detours to circumvent the stupid restrictions that Hollins and others try to create) will beat them every time.

Still, the demonRATS show their colors again, in favor of their money sources and against freedom and technical advancement.

[Mr. Bird]

I don't believe the concept is any different than the home taping scare of a mere 20 years ago. The problem, as I see it, is that the entertainment honchos still think the market landscape will be the same, but with different vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire entertainment universe undergoes a complete metamorphosis into something completely unlike what we have now.

They speak of items like songs, movies, videos, etc. as if they required some sort of individual "ownership" to be enjoyed, ie you and I would need to actually obtain these things and store them somewhere. It won't be like that at all. ISP's, or their descendants, will be providing these things upon request, in milliseconds. You want to watch the latest Schwarzeneggar flick? Make the selection from the appropriate menu on whichever device you are using (laptop, DTV, phone, etc.) and watch away.

Imagine a cable service, in 3-D. Not only does it provide cable (as we know it), but it provides shopping services, travel, news, reference data, whatever! You pay a monthly bill to one provider. That provider, in turn, purchases access to services from individual entertainment/travel/retail companies. You won't be buying CD's, because you won't NEED CD's. You'll just tune the song you want in on your car "stereo" whenever you want. Why store it on anything?

This DOES present interesting challenges for an entertainment industry in which artists' profits lag their labels' by at least one recording cycle. A label wishing to maximize the number of ISP's paying for its catalog will need to pay artists UP FRONT for their material, rather than the current set up, which has artists essentially giving their material to the label in exchange for promises of promotion.

ISP's themselves could get into the music biz, offering independent artist/producers slots in their "jukeboxes" in exchange for exclusives.

I can't wait. It'll be very cool, and the Eisner's of the world will be looked upon as dinosaurs....

[Paleo Conservative]

The Dems, led by Fritz Hollings, are pandering to their Hollywood donors here.

Next time Hollings is up for re-election, the RNC should run ads calling him the "Senator from Hollywood". We should make it clear to the voters of South Carolina that he is more interested in representing the interests of Hollywood moguls than the people of South Carolina. I don't think that Hollywood is all that popular in his home state.

[Grig]

What idiocy. My C64 still runs fine even though it is 15 years old. I expect my general purpose Wintel machine will last as long, so changing the hardware, or even the software is just not going to work unless they want to totaly change the system and force everyone to buy a new TV.

If they just put some effort into it, they could USE the internet to do business better. Instead of relying on inaccurate Neilson ratings, they sell subscriptions to programs. Users could download and watch them (including commercials) for their own use (no different than using a VCR) and they would get a much better picture of what is popular and how large their audience is so they can charge advertisers more. Kind of like Rush's 24/7 deal.

[Maitre_Z]

What scares the media giants is that if your vision comes true they will loose their cut as a distribution channel. Remember many networks don't actually make the shows they broadcast.

In your scenario, your subscription for a program, e.g., Seinfeld would be a contract with the producers (Larry David, etc.) and not with NBC or some other network. This is called "disintermediation", think of it as the media equivalent of the factory outlet store.

[Bush2000]

What's missing from this debate is a little common sense on both sides. Hollywood deserves to protect their investment in content. And patrons deserve to repurpose some content for alternate devices (alternate TVs, timed recording, handhelds, MP3 players, etc). Anybody who argues that one side or the other should have absolute control is merely demagoguing the issue or looking to steal content without paying for it. Be reasonable. It doesn't take much forethought to realize that, if everyone starts to steal content, Hollywood simply won't invest money in a losing proposition -- or they'll change distribution methods to thwart pirates.

[Bush2000]

If they just put some effort into it, they could USE the internet to do business better...

Of course, but that would entail a great amount of risk. What you and others seem to be saying to Hollywood is, "We're going to hold this gun to your head, and if you don't do what we say, we're going to blow your brains out for being too outmoded and slow..."

[white trash redneck]

I don't think the RNC has the sense, or the guts, to run a campaign on firm conservative principles.

[Grig]

What you and others seem to be saying to Hollywood is, "We're going to hold this gun to your head, and if you don't do what we say, we're going to blow your brains out for being too outmoded and slow..."

And the problem with that is what exactly?

[livius]

This is insane, and I hope it dies abornin'.

Mr. Bird is absolutely right: new technology will always keep one jump ahead.

However, it could be a real pain in the whatever in the meantime. I have a Pocket PC, a great little device, that has MS Reader; I bought it at least partly to be able to BUY and download e-books so I could read trashy spy stories on long flights without having to lug along all those books. However, Amazon and other retailers changed their encryption level to one that my Pocket PC can't handle, and since this is hard-wired into the Pocket PC, the net result is that I buy - NOTHING! '

I'm sure this is not what they had in mind. I'm not about to buy another Pocket PC, however, until this one is hopelessly out of date or gets stolen. And I'm sure the same will be true with other hardware dependent protection schemes.

I have no problem with writers, musicians and even studios getting what they deserve. I'm willing to pay for what I read, listen to, etc. But if you make it impossible for me, forget it. I'll go to some other source (for example, I'm buying e-books by new writers from a little web site in New Zealand) or do without.

In short, they're cutting their own throats.

[Grig]

What scares the media giants is that if your vision comes true they will loose their cut as a distribution channel. Remember many networks don't actually make the shows they broadcast.

But they are the ones in the best position to move in and dominate a NEW distribution channel. If they don't embrace it, it will be their death. I can go to Ifilm.com right now and watch all kinds of independantly made shorts that would never see the light of day otherwise. With the net they would not be restricted to 24hrs of programming time a day either. With ad and subscription revenue, reletively low distribution costs, tons of easily harvested market data, they could create a profitable e-biz, providing a superior service at the same or lower cost.

In your scenario, your subscription for a program, e.g., Seinfeld would be a contract with the producers (Larry David, etc.) and not with NBC or some other network.

Or, the network could pay money to the producers to distribute it online, and make money from advertising, subscription fees, sale of program related merchandise etc. so consumers don't have to go hunting for a hundred different web sites to find shows they want to see. They wouldn't have to give up broadcasting either, since not everyone has a high speed connection. If they wanted to do it, they could.

[jpl]

"Within five years," he says, "the music industry will be a cottage industry."

Given what the big labels pass off today as music, one could make a pretty good argument that the industry in fact deserves to die.

[Bush2000]

And the problem with that is what exactly?

It's called extorton. And that kind of behavior is no better than that of two-bit hoodlums.

[Grig]

It's called extorton. And that kind of behavior is no better than that of two-bit hoodlums.

It's called market forces. Companies can give the consumer what they want or die.