Hollywood Looking To Legislate History Into Place Permanently
from the leave-everything-the-same dept
The EFF has noticed that the latest in a long, long line of bills put forth by Hollywood (via a politician acting as proxy) puts into law the idea that the way broadcast content has been consumed should remain forever. The specific quote is that any innovation needs to offer "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law." As Fred Von Lohmann points out, if that wording was in place years ago, we'd have no VCRs and no TiVos. Innovation isn't about leaving historical usage in place, but about looking forward. Once again, this is about legislating to protect a business model, rather than an industry being willing to innovate.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legislating to protect a business model
That's only what it seems to be. What it really is, is a death gasp of an industry that had provided a service that is no longer needed. There is now technology that allows artists to sell their products directly to their customers. No "middle man" required. Society has moved on without the horse and buggy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting view
It figures that the entertainment industry (which had its best ever sales via the internet this past Christmas) is busy looking to try and keep my money in their pocket. If they got their heads out of their backsides, they might see that to continue in this direction will in fact drive them straight into bankruptcy. After all if we (their consumers) innovate, we will replace them with our own technology and remove any need for their industry while still supporting our favorite artists. The MPAA and RIAA are in danger of going the way of the dinosaur.
As a further note, it is worthy to mention that the RIAA's attempt to sue people for downloading is actually against the entire premise of the internet. Every document that covers the creation of it states that it was created by the Department of Defense for the express purpose of sharing information and files. In my humble opinion the only people they have any right to harass are those who actually share out their libraries. This only cements the fact that the RIAA and MPAA are outdated and we (again, their consumers) need to find new ways of entertainment that eliminate them from the process.
It still amazes me how much of a mark up there is on music and movies. Whenever I am buying a CD, I buy it directly from the artist's site, or I don't buy it. Most of the time for me, I find a better class of music from local artists that are trying hard to make something real. When a local artist sells a CD, they make most of the profits from their sale, thus I have no issues with $15 a CD. My problem is when Best Buy and others like them can push the RIAA into a position where they are letting retailers sell CD's for a $10 profit above the cost of the CD. Nothing has changed in the last 5 years as to how we are being cheated out of our hard earned money just to have a small measure of enjoyment in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting view
My only concern and hope is that artists can find a way to promote themselves with the power the "industry" has. Once this is available there really will be no need for the middle man.
Sales is all about marketing and marketing sells a lot of crap we don't need and leaves out what is doesn't want to bother with. If/when artists can do this effectively on a broad scale we will all benefit.
Coach Daley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting view
What you are suggesting is that every retailer that sells music, went to the RIAA and told them that they won't sell music unless they can make $10 profit. If they sell a cd for $15 and it cost $10 that means they are making roughly $10 (minus other costs) per cd. That is a return on invested capital of nearly 200% If that were the case you would expect to see businesses that deal primarily in music, like Samgoody and Down in the Valley, doing very well in business. If they had so much money due to these high profits you would expect to see them expanding to better serve their customer base.
If you haven't heard of Down in the Valley that should tell you that music reselling is not a profitable business. It is simply a way for retailers to get you into their store fronts to buy other products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
-No, you just take random potshots at people who aren't straight in a context that has absolutely nothing to do with it. For myself, your opinion might have mattered if your own agenda and lack of exposure to the vast diversity that is human culture hadn't shone through in your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
Gay rights are the special rights that gays want to protect themselves with more consideration than heteros. They and they liberal buds can paint a picture of discrimination and the neeed for extra protections but the fact is, like it or not if it's now normal, then they deserve nothing more in the way of rights than anyone else. Instead, they want it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
You ever seen the way most people in this country treat homosexuals? I don't call that equal.
What the hell is Gay Rights? Maybe...the right to get married, and have the same tax deductions available to them that other couples have?
Has anyone ever considered that banning gay marriage is a gay tax?
Hell, the fact that Hollywood can't make a movie about gays without pissing off Christians shows that they don't have the same rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
Being gay is being forced on people, I suspect the vast majority of us are apethetic to it and happy to ignore it's presence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
you need to open your mind. I can't believe that people are so closed minded that they need to have everything be mainstream. How fucking boring.
My complaint about hollywood is that they are redoing the same movies with the same plots over and over again. While I don't think brokeback is terribly exciting, the last thing I will ever complain about is someone not being mainstream. There are plenty of avenues to attack this movie from and you chose to paint yourself as an uneducated redneck. Would you really be satisfied if all they ever made were a bunch of Jesus flicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
2 words: Quentin Tarantino. << br>
Typical Americans.
Any thing to do with sex is taboo and must be expunged from public view.
Graphic and extreme violence is however considered a classic / epic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
Great post Andy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
I understand you must dehumanise gays as to put them beyond god's mercy and grace, so that their lives lose value and your choice of lifestyle is validated, but this is not the place.
By the way, whom are you, mere mortal, to interpret god's design or intentions?
As Jimmy Carter said "When will America realise that when our forefathers said 'freedom and justice for all', all meant ALL."
I suppose you are just following the Bibles example of god's intolerance in 2 Kings 2:23-24.
I however prefer Epicurus's paradox.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
I'm just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
2 words: Quentin Tarantino.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
The movies you mentioned are mass produced uncreative Christian historically inacurate crap. As far as brokeback, who gives a shit. If some fag wants to write a movie about homos and someone else wants to see it, then welcome to capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
Either gets bashed for making unimaginative crap or sequel after sequel or makes something original like brokeback and gets bashed for the subject matter
Does the subject interest me? No, movie about modern day gays might have, movie about cowboys might have, but gay cowboys? No thank you (though was dragged to see it by the better half)
But at least it is reasonably original
What I do find very indicative of the industry is the massive accolades the movie is getting though, ok it's not a bad movie, but neither is it very good (as one critic said it's about 20 mins to long and I could not agree with him more).
So why all the rave reviews? In my mind due to two things, obviously first off politically correctness but secondly and just as importantly, it probably is one of the top movies in the last 12 months, but that’s not saying how good the movie is, just how poor everything else Hollywood has been dishing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
However, a sea change is in motion - an irreversible sea change: Distribution is very different; consumers are very different.
I honestly believe that the movie industry (and the music industry) will evolve in a good way – and very soon. It is in their best interest to figure out how to remain solvent and profitable in a new age of networked, electronically-advantaged consumers. As the baby-boomers (here in the U.S.) age out, the remaining generations will vote not only with their pocketbooks, but with their hearts and loyalties too.
Studios/labels/production companies that seek to understand newer generations of entertainment consumers will be rewarded with revenue. Those businesses that insist that their customers bend to an antiquated business model will not be rewarded with revenue.
Hollywood, the film industry, and the music industry are not evil – nor are they deserving of a business crash. Rather, they are just like every industry and business in the world today – facing huge change. I, for one, hope they figure it out soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Hollywood Looking To Legislate History Into Pl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical
In a related story, Borkeback Mountain, a putrid film about gay cowboys who cheat on their wives, destroy their families, and engage in heinous, immoral relations, is being called, "The most beautiful love story ever filmed." (look it up) Why? Does the movie have merit? Perhaps, but it is not nearly the cinematic watershed it is being hailed. Rather, you have a group of people with a political agenda who think that if enough people say positive things and enough awards are heaped on it, then homosexuality will be accepted by society. This is the thinking of the people in Hollywood. The same type of thinking that leads to the belief that using legislation to keep antique laws in place is best for everyone.
Hollywood has decided that America is going to follow their monopolistic, anachronistic ideas about DR in the same way that it has dediced that America is going to accept homosexuality or be damned (name me one current TV show that DOESN'T have a gay character). How ironic!
Burn, Hollywood, Burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical
you know people used to say name one tv show that doesn't have a black character. How about naming a tv show that uses a gay character for anything but comic relief.
None of the shows I watch have a gay character, you must be attracted to them. The tv show I'll be watching to day is called NFL playoffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
catch 22
It's true that the machine has lost quite a bit of creativity and "out of the box" mentality--likely due to technology creating global and independent competition, such that due to the nature that most studios are investor-owned, greed has trumped QUALITY. Taking risks (lots of tech layoffs the past few years has everyone jumpy) is minimized. And the tech industry deserves some of the blame--we all know the dotcom boom was a just full of CS grad joe-hot-shot wanting to make a million bucks at all costs (we all wanted to be Bill Gates with a MONOPOLY over everything). Basically, as the saying goes, content is king and the studios know it,and it's a hard problem fellas. We all have 1 favorite movie over the last 50 years--the system does work--so instead of whining, why don't we supply some real solutions instead of the MS mentality of "rebooting" to solve these problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: catch 22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I don't like how a link was formed between corrupted business operations and homosexuality. Yes, it's a gay cowboy movie. So what? We have movies about enough of other things. I don't see why this movie should change any of it. And all the people telling everyone else how sick and disgusting this movie is ... have any of you watched it? read the story? know the story?
I mean, you can say, it's about two guys who destroy their marriages for anal sex ... but ... do you realize how perverse you made the story sound? It's about two people being forced into believing that what they're doing is wrong. They're pushed into loveless marriages and denying who they are.
Granted, I did not enjoy the movie for other reasons but I will still vouch for its right to be shown.
*sigh*, it's 2006 now ... I thought people were a lot more tolerant and accepting ... I guess we still have a long way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
8 mile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
However, you do realize not ALL gay people stick toasters up their rectums right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Damn, I was hoping nobody had seen me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]