What If Movies Went Away?

from the times-change dept

Wed, Jul 2nd 2008 9:35am — Mike Masnick

For years, in discussing how copyrights really aren't necessary, it's always only a matter of time until someone brings up the infamous $200 million question -- first asked to me by someone at NBC Universal years ago: "But how will Universal make $200 million movies without copyright?" As we've explained, that's the wrong question. The cost to make a movie is meaningless in this context -- as it's been shown that the cost of making a movie is actually inflated due to a variety of factors, including overly aggressive use of copyright, which allows inefficiencies to enter into the moviemaking process. Without copyright, moviemakers would have to cut down on some of that waste, and focus on actually making movies at more reasonable costs -- which is absolutely possible.

The real question is how will movies make money -- and that's easy enough to answer. As plenty of folks have been pointing out for years, the movie business isn't selling movies, but selling seats to an experience. Put on a good moviegoing experience and the money will still come in. Theater owners will have every incentive in the world to make sure good movies get made, otherwise they won't be able to stay in business.

However, in the ongoing online debate being held by the Cato institute, Rasmus Fleischer makes another point that's at least worth considering: what if movies really aren't that important as a content medium. Now, personally, as a movie fan, this made me cringe, but the overall point he's making is worth thinking about, noting that movies are a recent phenomenon, and other forms of "high art" have come and gone in the past without the world ending. He quotes Paul Oskar Kristeller:

There were important periods in cultural history when the novel, instrumental music, or canvas painting did not exist or have any importance. On the other hand, the sonnet and the epic poem, stained glass and mosaic, fresco painting and book illumination, vase painting and tapestry, bas relief and pottery have all been “major” arts at various times and in a way they no longer are now. Gardening has lost its standing as a fine art since the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the moving picture is a good example of how new techniques may lead to modes of artistic expression for which the aestheticians of the eighteenth and nineteenth century had no place in their systems. The branches of the arts all have their rise and decline, and even their birth and death.

The point is quite clear. "High art" forms come and go -- and when something new comes along to replace the old form, people don't feel that it's such a huge loss, usually because something the market prefers more comes along instead. If there's really a demand for movies, a business model will be created to finance them and make sure they make money. However, getting rid of copyright may teach us that there are other art forms out there that are even better.

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

Filed Under: art, movies, rasmus fleischer

49 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

moore850 (profile), 2 Jul 2008 @ 9:52am

digital vs. analog copyright
getting rid of copyright doesn't have much effect on the value of the original... except in the case of digital works. There is only one real Statue of David by Michelangelo, but there are millions of "Enter Sandman" copies by "Metallica", even though there's only one gold master, they are all nearly identical in content to that gold master, to the extent that you can enjoy any copy of the performance as if the band were right there in front of you. The difference? They still aren't right there in front of you, and not capitalizing on that fact is their own fault. Movies can be put on real time, but generally that's called theater, and it has major drawbacks compared to an actual movie. If movie theaters are so concerned about copyright, then stop selling any DVD's and charge more for tickets to see the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some old guy, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: digital vs. analog copyright
  That's not an argument of analog vs digital, its an argument of tangible vs intangible.
  
  (Offtopic: Intellectual Property is not Property at all. It is imaginary property. And unless it is claimed at value as property, and property taxes are paid for it, then I refuse to respect it. )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:47am
    
    Re: Re: digital vs. analog copyright
    "Intellectual Property is not Property at all. It is imaginary property."
    
    To clarify a bit, it's a government granted monopoly with statutory and common law limitations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:06am

If IP went away you could stop complaining about it and the world would be a better place simply because you stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- B, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  Hurrr... watch as I troll techdirt Hurrr....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow you are an idiot, B.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bob, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And I suppose you think that it is easy being this stupid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bob, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh and I was attempting to be sarcastic both times. I guess I have smoked too much, I have lost my edge...I will try harder in the future, not smarter, just harder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:08am

WILL SMITH GOT TO EAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:10am

I recently visited Austin Tx, and had the amazing experience of seeing a movie at one of their "Draft Houses". At this movie theater, I paid normal price (~$10) for a movie, and for another $25.00, me and my girl filled up on quality cheeseburgers, Sangria, and a few beers.

afaik, these places do not exist in NYC (probably because MPAA chains run all the movie theaters in the city), but regardless. Until I drank beer, wine, and cheeseburgers while watching a movie with my friends, I did not understand you people meant by "Selling an experience".

Many of us are too complacent with spending $12.00 on popcorn and a soda, that we stopped bitching about the movie industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:26am
  
  Re: Drafthouse
  The Alamo Drafthouse should be used as a great example of what a movie going experience could be. They do quote alongs and sing alongs to old movies and dvd's of videos. They used to show older movies at midnight on the weekend where you could see the movies of your childhood (Muppet Movie, Flash Gordon for example) with a drink and dessert. The food is definitly better than most theaters and the experience is 1000 times better than any "traditional" theater.
  
  If you look at their site, you can see the different things they do with new release and older movies and they keep expanding so they must be finding a way to make money while other theaters struggle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:16am

Another example of a business model refusing to die admirably.
I don't know that I agree that we need to start a discussion topic for the 'end of the moving picture' as an art form, for it is still one of the largest forms of entertainment in today's society. Other forms of art have come and gone because they were replaced with something more appealing to the masses. If you are suggesting that there is currently something on the forefront that will capture more attention than film, I personally would like to know what it is.

I think the issue here is more that everyone in the film industry believes that their good ideas are naturally worth getting rich over, and really their collective worths are no longer jiving with what their business model is naturally evolving into, what with the ever increasing 'home theater experience'. Suddenly, to support the inflated salaries of the directors, producers, actors, writers, supporting cast, special effects teams, managers, publicists, and catering crew, your standard family of 4 spends no less than $100 for this 'movie going experience' and most people are deciding its just not worth it.

Maybe instead of it being film that has come to the end of it's lifespan as the prominent art form, it is the middle man delivering that film, being the theater industry themselves. Theaters were originally conceived as a good idea to show art to the masses back in the early days of film. Not only was a television a luxury item back in the mid 1900s but the VCR was only invented in 1971, and even then they were too expensive for many people to afford. So then, theater viewing was a good idea. But with DVD, Blu-Ray, and 50"+ televisions being more and more common are they really necessary anymore? This is yet another example of large established business models not accepting that their time has come to either change or die an admirable death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Another example of a business model refusing to die admirably.
  If you are suggesting that there is currently something on the forefront that will capture more attention than film, I personally would like to know what it is.
  
  That would be interactive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 2 Jul 2008 @ 8:39pm
    
    Re: Re: Another example of a business model refusing to die admirably.
    ...as in video games, only way more than a game.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nasch, 3 Jul 2008 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Another example of a business model refusing to die admirably.
      Actually IIRC video games already pull in more money than movies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SisterofDot, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:18am

Mike Masnick
I'm sick of your opinion. Why do you keep railing to get something for nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Mike Masnick
  I'm sick of your opinion.
  
  Then you are welcome to do something about. A couple of choices:
  
  (1) Convince me that my opinion is wrong.
  (2) Stop reading it.
  
  You have so far chosen to do neither.
  
  Why do you keep railing to get something for nothing?
  
  If you read what I actually wrote you would notice that I am not "railing to get something for nothing." In fact, I've pointed out many business models to make sure that this sort of content can continue.
  
  So why do you keep railing against something I did not say?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erv Server, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:30am

movies
It sucks going to a movie theater anymore, noisy kids, rude people and cell phones, belching punk teenagers. Sticky and dirty floors, crappy, uncomfortable seats. We are to pay $10 a ticket for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mobiGeek, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: movies
  Find a better theatre. I don't return to a place that doesn't service me, the customer, properly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2008 @ 1:24am
    
    Re: Re: movies
    "I don't return to a place that doesn't service me"
    
    I tell you if they put the kind of "servicing" I have in mind in cinemas I'd certainly go more frequently ;-O
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:36am

It's going to be great when all the theaters go digital and get their content via Satellite or Fiber and display on Christie CP2000 series projectors

Wait... That's already happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Someone, 2 Jul 2008 @ 5:04pm
  
  It's going to be great when all the theaters go digital and get their content via Satellite or Fiber and display on Christie CP2000 series projectors
  And will it still be great twenty years from now when all of that digital stuff goes obsolete? There are theatres out there that give better shows with good ol' 35mm film and forty-year-old projectors. The digital conversion is in some respects a solution in search of a problem, especially to theatres that know how to handle film properly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Waxwing Slain, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:38am

There's a good argument to be made that movies will not go away, but $200million movies may indeed go away, and good riddance.

The technology required to make movies has been coming down in price for a long time, and there have been movies that have cost 1/10,000 of the average big-studio blockbuster that have not only been terrific, but have made a bundle of money.

If the big studios, big labels, big publishers went away tomorrow, we would miss them a lot less than you think. Their only function is to siphon off a huge chunk of wealth from artists and other working people. They simply are no longer necessary. In fact, they are a demonstrably negative influence on the creative world and the world of those of us who enjoy art, music, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eliot, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:50am

Future of Movies...
There is simply no way that movies will go away. With the number of cameras (HD digital video cameras for less than $200, for example) and the ease of publishing their content (YouTube, for example) movies will become only more abundant. I think they will become more abundant and both worse and better. I think big studios will stop putting out quite so much crap, but I think that smaller studios and individuals will begin making much, much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:03am

Stupid, stupid argument.

Look - nine times out of ten even a 'copy' of a movie by the person holding the rights to it - well, sucks.

'Invaders from Mars' - the 80's/90's remake, sucked so bad I think it damaged my TV. There are many, many other examples.

Copyright is meaningless when the content is good, as well as copyright is meaningless when the content is bad.

If some 'rogue' movie company made a copy of Ironman, people would just be like, "What a cheap stunt, I'm not going to see that". If ANYTHING hurts movie sales, it's the attitude of Hollywood, the content of the movies, the political digs they put in the movies.

There's a few movies I have seen and would not, even for one second dream of buying it - because of political digs.

Like that E.T. "remaster" with no guns - come on, give me a break how stupid is that?? I'd much rather buy the original. I didn't see it, I didn't care to - I mean, why? Oh, so we can feel good because federal agents don't have guns? That's realistic.

What about the remake of Planet of the Apes? I mean seriously - that's like night and day between it and the original. The original is STILL better than the remake.

Titanic might be one of the few that did a decent job, but even then it wasn't like the old one. Too much is lost in Hollywood now because they choose to grind their axes in politics and other areas.

When I go see a movie the very, very, very, very last thing I want to think about is any kind of damn politics. I go to a movie to enjoy an 'escape' from reality, not for Hollywood to make it's point about how bad guns and smoking are.

So.... for the most part, I don't go see them :)

I could give a rat's ass about copyright or some cheap attempt at a copy or remake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  um, smoking is bad, guns can be too.
  
  If you want conservative slanted movies there is always the "Left Behind" series on DVD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Amaress, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think his point was smoking or guns aren't bad, rather why would the people who remade the film feel the need to digitally remove them from a movie. Especially in his example with federal agents. They have guns. It's a fact of life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ferd, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Overcast: When I go see a movie the very, very, very, very last thing I want to think about is any kind of damn politics. I go to a movie to enjoy an 'escape' from reality, not for Hollywood to make it's point about...
    
    Bob:If you want conservative slanted movies there is always the "Left Behind" series on DVD.
    
    Uhhhh, Bob. You did actually read the post by Overcast, eh? Esp the part where he says "the very, very, very, very last thing I want to think about is ANY kind of bleep politics" and wants to escape from reality? Your apparent knee-jerk reaction to Overcast's desire to be free from political agendas is really somewhat silly.
    
    Also, in support of his point, consider this fact (are you listening Hollywood?):
    The top 25 grossing US films of all time are:
    1) a high-seas romance drama,
    2) a sci-fi good vs evil space opera
    3) a cartoon
    4) a sci-fi cute alien movie
    5) a sci-fi good vs evil space opera
    6) a fantasy based undead pirate movie
    7) a comic book movie
    8) a sci-fi good vs evil space opera
    9) a fantasy movie based on a fantasy novel
    10) a comic book movie
    11) a movie about Christ
    12) a sci-fi movie about dinosaurs
    13) a fantasy movie based on a fantasy novel
    14) a cartoon
    15) a comic book movie
    16) a movie about a simple minded hero
    17) a cartoon
    18) a cartoon
    19) a movie based on a cartoon
    20) a fantasy movie based on a fantasy novel
    21) a fantasy movie based on a fantasy novel
    22) a sci-fi good vs evil space opera
    23) a fantasy based undead pirate movie
    24) a comic book movie
    25) a sci-fi good vs evil space opera
    
    ... and allll the way down there at number 279:
    279) Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
    
    Maybe it is just me, but I kind of see a pattern here and it ISN'T agenda-based, heavy-handed, "we're so much smarter than you ignorant peasants" Hollywood muck. Is it any wonder "Lions for Lambs" only grossed $15M in domestic revenue?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tony, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Conservative slanted"?
    
    Generalizing a bit, aren't we? http://www.theatheistconservative.com/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milodon, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:07pm

Better form of entertainment...
For those asking what the better form of entertainment is.. I would argue video games. for roughly the same price I get months of entertainment vs hours... I could care less if movies went away. Music too for that mater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bored, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:44pm

Who cares, I have video games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:17pm

Who gets screwed
Getting rid of copyright wouldn't hurt the STUDIOS so much. But it COULD hurt the industry.

Remember El Mariachi? (Probably the best movie Robert Rodriguez ever made)

Rodriguez made this movie for about $7000, and planned to sell it to Spanish television. Eventually, a big studio saw the movie and bought it. (A gross oversimplification, granted).

Without copyright, the studio COULD have just taken the movie and distributed it without any compensation to Rodriguez. They may have, they may not have. But not all studios will (a) behave ethically or (b) recognize the talent of a upcoming filmmaker.

It's worse when it comes to writers.

What is your plan for protecting the efforts of people who write spec scripts? Without copyright, a studio finds a good script, well, they can just go make the movie, and to hell with the writer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 2 Jul 2008 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re: Who gets screwed
  Without copyright, the studio COULD have just taken the movie and distributed it without any compensation to Rodriguez.
  
  Yes, they could have, but even if they did, it would have seriously raised Rodriguez's profile, and made sure that there was a bidding war to get him to make his next movie.
  
  They may have, they may not have. But not all studios will (a) behave ethically or (b) recognize the talent of a upcoming filmmaker.
  
  Indeed, but enough will. For a historical parallel, look at what happened in the US book publishing industry back when the US ignored British copyright. US publishers quite often still paid British authors even though they didn't have to.
  
  What is your plan for protecting the efforts of people who write spec scripts? Without copyright, a studio finds a good script, well, they can just go make the movie, and to hell with the writer.
  
  Pretty much guaranteeing that the writer will never ever work with that studio again in the future. That seems like a pretty big bridge to burn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tony, 2 Jul 2008 @ 6:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Who gets screwed
    If I had a little more faith in the Hollywood Studios to realize that treating writers and directors ethically was good business, I would agree. But the Studios can't even seem to realize that making good movies is good business.
    
    "Yes, they could have, but even if they did, it would have seriously raised Rodriguez's profile, and made sure that there was a bidding war to get him to make his next movie."
    
    Maybe, maybe not. And what does Rodriguez do in the meantime?
    
    "Pretty much guaranteeing that the writer will never ever work with that studio again in the future. That seems like a pretty big bridge to burn."
    
    When there are more bridges than you can count, it's not that big a deal to burn a few. And I think you're not understanding the meaning of SPEC.
    
    A SPEC script is a script that you write on speculation - that is, you write it, and hope to sell it to a studio and get it produced. Studios receive a steady stream of spec scripts on a daily basis. A small percentage of them are worth producing. Sometimes, as in the case of "Rocky", a bidding war erupts over said script.
    
    Now, what if, instead of bidding over the script and meeting Stallone's demands (one of which was that he play Rocky), some studio just goes off and makes the movie?
    
    For that matter, what if FOUR studios did the same?
    
    OK - so eventually, people just won't send their scripts to those studios, right?
    
    Or maybe they just won't send their scripts to anyone. Then we continue to get stuck with the same trite crap from the same talentless hacks we already have, and there is less of an incentive for talented writers to bother.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nasch, 3 Jul 2008 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who gets screwed
      Or maybe they just won't send their scripts to anyone. Then we continue to get stuck with the same trite crap from the same talentless hacks we already have, and there is less of an incentive for talented writers to bother.
      
      You seem to be claiming that Hollywood studios are and will remain the only way to have movies made, and that if writers can't get there movies made there, they won't get made. Why do you make this claim? It will continue to get cheaper, faster, and easier to make high quality movies anywhere by anybody. Regardless of what happens with copyright, we will see more movies in the future, not fewer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Willton, 3 Jul 2008 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Who gets screwed
        You seem to be claiming that Hollywood studios are and will remain the only way to have movies made, and that if writers can't get there movies made there, they won't get made. Why do you make this claim? It will continue to get cheaper, faster, and easier to make high quality movies anywhere by anybody. Regardless of what happens with copyright, we will see more movies in the future, not fewer.
        I can guarantee you that the price of a high quality actor's time will not go down, unless said actor is doing someone a favor.
        
        And more movies does equal better movies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 3 Jul 2008 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who gets screwed (edit)
        Should read "And more movies does not equal better movies."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2008 @ 12:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Who gets screwed
      The replies to this comment so far have not seriously addressed the issues raised by the comment or provided any answers to the questions. Just like this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:25pm

Re: Movies
I remember sitting down with an NBC exec who visited my school and bluntly told her that this last tv strike was much different from the one a few years ago in that there are multiple mediums that tv now has to compete with. NBC's target demographic, according to her, was 18-25 year old males. Meanwhile COD4 and Halo 3 came out, as well as GTA4. I use to watch a lot of tv, and now I have decided to wait to get cable until the start of the school year. Of course one person won't make that much of a difference, but as an 18-25 year old male, I'd have to think that there are others like me in the "key" demographic turning away from tv.

-- I recently played Mass Effect, and for the first time I was hooked into a video game story line. If video games can figure out how to engage players not only with shooting and challenging puzzles, but with character development and enthralling storylines, they could really expand the market. I know people are going to say RPGs have been around for years, but they have never come close to really good storytelling. If I were a writer, I would seriously consider writing for video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trouble removing wrinkles?, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re: Re: Movies
  ..there are multiple mediums that tv now has to compete with. NBC's target demographic, according to her, was 18-25 year old males... but as an 18-25 year old male, I'd have to think that there are others like me in the "key" demographic turning away from tv.
  
  Yep, your right John. Leaving in droves.
  
  http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573733.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Him ThatIs, 2 Jul 2008 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Re: Movies
  You should really try Final Fantasy X & XII. Movies cannot compete with the plot twists, character development, political and religious aspects to their ever twisting plotlines. Have a nice day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 2 Jul 2008 @ 1:44pm

Overcast: When I go see a movie the very, very, very, very last thing I want to think about is any kind of damn politics. I go to a movie to enjoy an 'escape' from reality, not for Hollywood to make it's point about...

Bob:If you want conservative slanted movies there is always the "Left Behind" series on DVD.

Uhhhh, Bob. You did actually read the post by Overcast, eh? Esp the part where he says "the very, very, very, very last thing I want to think about is ANY kind of bleep politics" and wants to escape from reality? Your apparent knee-jerk reaction to Overcast's desire to be free from political agendas is really somewhat silly.

No - I loved Grindhouse. There weren't a bunch of 'feel good' political BS about how smoking kills you. I KNOW that already, I'm not going to a movie to be 'preached' at - by the left or the right :) - sure there might have been some very subtle political messages there, but I didn't catch them - so much the better.

That's far from 'left behind' - which I've seen too. Look - I may be in the mood for a political movie; like Left Behind, Terrorstorm, Endgame, or whatever - but see that's the *topic* of the movie.

I don't want to go see ET and be 'educated' that guns are horrible devices that can kill, OMG! It's completely off topic, out of context, etc.

I don't need to know that Ron Howard is a wonderful lil' Lefty who's worried about the environment, hates guns, and hates smoking - unless, of course; that's the plot/topic of the movie. I can read about that drivel in People or something. The idea was I was going to see a movie - that's not supposed to really be about or reflect reality.

And for the record - I don't buy into the left or right rhetoric on what's best in life. I think the right wing sucks and I think the left wing sucks - they are both wrong half the time, but refuse to admit it, for fear that it might not make their axe sharp enough :)

Keep politics in the news, on the blogs, and in the trash cans where it belongs - keep entertainment worth the $$$ to see it - that's all I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freakengine, 2 Jul 2008 @ 2:03pm

While movies may not "go away"...
public exhibition of them very well may. At the present, most major studios look at the theatrical exhibition as a promotion for the soon-to-be-released DVD. The fact that they occasionally make bank on the theatrical releases is the cherry on top. And as far as a "replacement" goes, video games already make more money than feature films. That doesn't mean they're replacing features, but their descendants very well could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huntsville Computer Services, 2 Jul 2008 @ 2:54pm

Change with the times
If they can provide an experience that cannot be replicated in the home environment, folks would be flocking to the theaters. Since there are currently several prototype 3D or holographic display systems (that do not require special glasses) in development, that would be an obvious choice.

History has shown that companies change with the times - or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 2 Jul 2008 @ 3:52pm

Rambling...
I, for one, have never seen industries so resistant to change. In the past decade, both the MPAA and RIAA have challenged virtually every innovation that could help the industry thrive and grow. This seems to go against traditional wisdom- they should have embraced new technology, and seen, years ago, some of the opportunities being created and applied embraced tech throughout their valuechain.

When well established companies get into new areas of business, this should have been telling of things to come. A few examples could include Kodak (whom embraced digital cameras), BestBuy (web-based fufillment) and Hallmark (eCards). Unfortunately, it seems the scorched earth policies appear to have turned a sour note for innovative ideas to come forward. Now, faced with declining revenues, stemming from loss of key demographic segments, some of the associated member companies appear to be feeling the pinch.

One issue is that the current model does not enable consumers to interact with content like other types of content (vis a vis Games, "Teh Facebook", YouTube, and to some extent, iPhone) do. So as long as content is static, it seems everything is okay within the current model. However, this is going to be an increasingly uphill battle to fight as we move forward into the world of interactive environment. Consider (I mean this lovingly) Table Computing with Surface, upcoming DreamWorks 3D, social networking, games that allow users to bring their own content like AudioSurf and just the overall concept of hyperconnectivity.

The writing has been on the wall for sometime. However, new canvasses are being born, and on the horizon for artists to produce their content outside of the current framework.

Its interesting when people would rather forward links to promote shoestring budget content like "Charlie The Unicorn" and "Chocolate Rain", but I think people these days like the humanistic element these types of content bring.

Is it too late to change? Who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 2 Jul 2008 @ 6:38pm

movies
"Without copyright, moviemakers would have to cut down on some of that waste, and focus on actually making movies at more reasonable costs -- which is absolutely possible."

I don't think copyright accounts for as big a chunk of movie cost as you make it out to be.

"The real question is how will movies make money -- and that's easy enough to answer. As plenty of folks have been pointing out for years, the movie business isn't selling movies, but selling seats to an experience."

How will a company "sell seats to an experience" when the movie is 6 months or 1 year old? Surely you realize movies recover their cost and make profits over a period of time (sometimes a decade), through various streams such as television, international rights and DVDs.

Removing copyright will effectively remove legitimate revenue streams because in the absence of copyright, any TV channel or movie theater can screen a film without having to pay back the producer (they may, but then they may not).

There's the issue of international rights that I have raised here earlier. If copyright goes, there's every likelihood producers may not see a dime coming back to them from overseas markets.

"Put on a good moviegoing experience and the money will still come in. Theater owners will have every incentive in the world to make sure good movies get made, otherwise they won't be able to stay in business."

I think you overestimate the willingness of theater owners to start supporting the industry by helping movies get made (I presume you think they will get into the business of movie production; correct me if I am wrong). Moviemaking is risky business; I don't think the theater owners would be willing to stake their money on it.

"If there's really a demand for movies, a business model will be created to finance them and make sure they make money. However, getting rid of copyright may teach us that there are other art forms out there that are even better."

There IS really a demand for movies, and there IS a business model that's helping a lot of companies finance them and make tons of money in the bargain. Getting rid of copyright could jeopardize all of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nasch, 3 Jul 2008 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: movies
  "If there's really a demand for movies, a business model will be created to finance them and make sure they make money. However, getting rid of copyright may teach us that there are other art forms out there that are even better."
  
  There IS really a demand for movies, and there IS a business model that's helping a lot of companies finance them and make tons of money in the bargain. Getting rid of copyright could jeopardize all of that.
  
  You missed his point. He's saying, if there's really a demand for movies, a business model will be created regardless of whether copyright exists. Copyright, particularly the absurdly long copyright we have in the US now, artificially enables one particular business model that might not be possible without it. But I've never seen any evidence that our society is better off because of copyright, only that certain people in it are better off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Srini Kumar, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:16pm

the alamo drafthouse model is the future of film
At some point, Borders and Barnes & Noble reframed book-buying as an experience, and totally took the entire industry over. Amazon took this ball and ran with it. It would be SO AWESOME to have an Alamo Drafthouse spring up in all kinds of cool towns around the States.

That said and $200mm movies just don't need to be made anymore. What's needed is a more social framework for moviegoing. The Internet can help with this. It'll also take more brave and thoughtful filmmaking which generates real conversations and stirs up the kind of controversy we need in American film.

Moviegoing is about the total experience, not just about what's on the screen. (CF "cinema paradiso" for instance). Look at the party that goes on in India whenever a major film rolls out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cram, 3 Jul 2008 @ 6:32pm

movies
Hi Nasch

Thanks for your thoughts.

"You missed his point. He's saying, if there's really a demand for movies, a business model will be created regardless of whether copyright exists."

I get his point alright. What is the need for a business model that is built on the lack of existence of copyright? I'd rather the industry tries to fix the problems in the existing model to improve business. As I have said earlier, I don't see a compelling need to do away with copyright.

One question: You guys kep touting the need to improve the movie going experience. Can't it be done with copyright remaining in place?

"But I've never seen any evidence that our society is better off because of copyright, only that certain people in it are better off."

And these certain people are the ones who make up a lare chunk of our creative industries - authors, singers, filmmakers...surely all these people have made the world a better place to live in.
Maybe you think they would have done so even in the absence of copyright - but we'll never know, will we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]