A Week After Feds Approve Movie Derivatives Market, Congress Bans It
from the so-much-for-that dept
Over the last few years, a few companies have been trying to set up financial markets for buying and selling movie derivatives. Effectively, it was a way to financially bet on the performance of certain movies -- whether long or short. There are all sorts of markets like this, and it's difficult to come up with any reason not to allow them -- but, of course, the MPAA cobbled together a bunch of complaints, including the idea that this would encourage more file sharing, as short sellers attempted to undermine the performance of a movie. So, it seemed like good news last week when regulators from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to approve one of these operations, the Trend Exchange, from Veriana.But it appears that victory was very short-lived, as Congress banned such offerings in the middle of the night last night. Basically, the MPAA was able to shove this issue into the Wall Street Reform bill which has widespread support, and politicians who didn't want to hold it up any more refused to take that provision out (which would have involved a fight).
Apparently Hollywood is so afraid of free markets that it has to oppose them every chance it gets.
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: congress, derivatives, markets, movies, trading
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They've killed off a potential business model too!
Short it.
Profit!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They've killed off a potential business model too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They've killed off a potential business model too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They've killed off a potential business model too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derivatives are *not* a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are *not* a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are *not* a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are *not* a free market.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that because *some* derivatives were bad that all derivatives are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this particular case, though, I think there has been very little support FOR this. Other than the companies wanting to offer these derivatives, I don't think anyone else has asked for them. I think it's more likely to be perceived by the public as a scam, so Congress probably comes out looking pretty good here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They may not get most of them right, but I don't see how this would be a good thing for anyone, especially given a history on derivatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derivatives are stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are stupid
Also, placing bets on films based on box office results seems to reinforce traditional Hollywood style movie delivery where ticket sales are closely followed and used as a significant measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Derivatives are stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Derivatives are stupid
Actually that would probably make a bigger mess of things. Then you could just blanket the country with free tickets to generate the numbers you want.
This article mentions some of the reasons why this financial market wouldn't reduce risk.
Hollywood Backs Ban on Box-Office Futures in Financial Overhaul - BusinessWeek: "Pisano told regulators, �The contracts provide no opportunity to hedge investment risks at the pre-production and production stages, when the real financial decisions are made and risks taken.�"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are stupid
Investment has always been a form of gambling. Pretending their different is a mistake.
Derivatives, by themselves, are not a bad thing.
Derivatives on the other hand, dont produce anything, in fact they are a leech on the system draining money out of companies that produce goods and services to companies that effectively contribute nothing to the economy.
It is true that *some* derivatives can cause problems, but damning all derivatives is an ignorant position.
Own a house? Have a mortgage? That's a derivative. Own a car? Have a lease? That's a derivative. Took out student loans? That's a derivative.
Don't knock "derivatives" as a class. They probably made it possible for you to do a lot of things in life you wouldn't have done otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
How exactly would these derivatives be a good thing for anyone involved?
It does seem like an unnecessary gambling that could either drive up the prices on movies or greatly harm the prices for nothing but short term monetary gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are stupid
Sad really so many people open on Copyright, yet give the talking points when its something the "media" says is bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derivatives are stupid
Sounds like the usual demographic techdirt shills for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
I went to a movie for the first time in 10 years the other day (Toy Story 3). I had to eat the crap popcorn and drink the crap soda (lost 5 years off my life), had to take a piss and missed 15 minutes of the movie and by the time it was done my ass was so sore from the horrible seats that I could barely get up. Plus I had to pay for this wonderful experience of a night out. I would rather be enjoying the privacy and freedom of my own home and if they don't provide the movie when I want it I will find a way to get it.
Downloaded first run movies are usually crap because they have to use a movie camera to capture it. The normal person recording a movie in this manner has no lighting and most of the time someone get up and walks in front of the camera. My point is that the quality is so blurry that it gives me a headache watching it on an analog tv, and it is totally unwatchable on a digital one. Why waste the time downloading it? You know it is going to be crap.
What I DO like about downloading movies is I can watch part of it before I waste the money in the theater because you can't rely on the reviews. It's the same with Software, Video Games and Music. Why waste my money (I don't have) on a product with no refunds or returns. Once the package is opened you can't return Movies, Software, or Music any more. They just assume you copied it and you are not entitled to a refund. I say we have the right to try before we buy especially when there is no refund or return.
I have accumulated at least a hundred games that my kids thought were crap and they all wound up in the garage in the crap pile. How many VHS tapes do you still have clogging up your living space? Music was even worse. From reel-to-reel to 8 track to cassette to cd to dvd. After a few years of this I became pissed off at being ripped off and stopped having a conscience about ripping them back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill stuffing is what is wrong with government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill stuffing is what is wrong with government
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bill stuffing is what is wrong with government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bill stuffing is what is wrong with government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Futures and Risk Duration.
Corn futures work because there really is a corn farmer back there, and he really does have a corn farm, and he really has planted corn, so he can sell futures against the crop. The nature of corn farming is that the farmer spends money on land rent and "inputs" (seeds, fuel, fertilizer, insecticides, etc) in the beginning of the year, and harvests and delivers his crop to the grain elevator at the end of the year, and the crop is actually sold to the ultimate consumers over the course of the following year, say an average of eighteen months from the time of expenditure to the time of payment. That reflects nature's cycles of summer and winter. It is understandable that a corn farmer wants to "lay off" some of that risk.
Industrial and commercial processes tend not to work that slowly. They usually run at the rate of at least ten "turns" a year. Even the special case of shipping goods from China only takes a couple of weeks or a month. An industrialist who wants to reduce his risk exposure may try to speed up his process, sometimes by the addition of a durable capital good. There are already mechanisms in place to finance durable capital goods. You can mortgage them, or sell them to separate companies, and lease them back. The investment is tied to a definite piece of equipment. Let's say it is a numerically controlled machine tool. That machine can be used to make something or other, even if the original purchaser should go out of business, and lenders are willing to write mortgages, on the assumption that they can always sell the machine to someone else, to make something else.
For example, the movie industry has been pushing the theater owners to adopt a system of fully digital downloading and projection, a la YouTube, and there has been a certain amount of argument about who is to pay for the equipment. This expenditure is not tied to any particular movie, and a theater thus equipped could easily be used to show sporting events, or in fact, almost anything an auditorium of that size, without backstage facilities, is good for. There shouldn't be any problem about putting the digital projector onto the theater's mortgage, like any other building improvement, unless there are underlying issues about the theater itself.
The movie industry's performing talent is accustomed to being paid largely on a contingent basis, anyway, according to the box-office receipts or other revenues. The general direction of technological progress is to speed up movie-making, to make it easier to outsource selected production expenses to India, etc. If you carry technological progress to its ultimate limit, you have each actor working away at his own part in his own virtual reality nest, all of them in parallel, effectively making ten different short subjects, each ten minutes in length, at the same time. Think of it as being like the many different reporters in a newsroom, each working on his own story for the daily edition. Under those circumstances, it might be possible to make a feature movie in a week or less. All of these factors tend to diminish the financial risk in making a given movie. So the movie industry has no identifiable need to lay off risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090927/PEOPLE/909279997
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]