Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
from the but-the-internet?-bah... dept
One of the key points in the SOPA/PIPA debate involved Hollywood -- and the MPAA's Chris Dodd and Michael O'Leary in particular -- dismissing the worries of folks in the tech industry about the rather fundamental changes that these laws would make to both the technological and legal frameworks of the internet. Anytime such a thing was brought up, it was dismissed out of hand. This was most noticeable during the original SOPA hearings in November, where a number of experts were pointing out their concerns with how SOPA would undermine basic internet security principles... and O'Leary dismissed them with a simple statement about how he just didn't believe those concerns to be true.What shocked many folks in the tech community was just how easily the MPAA sought to dismiss some pretty massive fundamental changes to both the internet and the legal framework around the internet. However, apparently if you dare touch the "fundamental" parts of Hollywood's business, the same MPAA throws a hissy fit. The EU recently had a public consultation on a variety of copyright-related topics, some of which were more interesting than others. One of the topics was on the question of movie release windows, and whether or not they made sense any more. As we've noted there have been many, many studies that suggest that these release windows are actually a big part of the problem for Hollywood, and they're leaving a ton of money on the table by not making movies available in as many convenient ways as possible.
In fact, many of the (non-Hollywood) respondents to the consultation made this point. There's BEUC (a consumers' group) that sees (pdf) "both platform and territorial release windows as outdated." GSMA called for (pdf) support for "flexible and shorter release windows." And EuroISPA was the most stringent (pdf), pointing out that:
the current windowing system is obsolete and seriously damaging the objective of the Digital Agenda, because it hampers the circulation of digital works and discriminate amongst platforms, to the detriment of more innovative technologies and business modelsBut you get a totally different story when you hear the MPAA's international arm, the MPA, tell its story (pdf). You see, to Hollywood, release windows are a "fundamental" part of its business model, and how dare anyone think of touching it.
The MPA submits that the freedom to set the exact timing for the release of films in various media and various countries is a fundamental feature of the film industry’s business modelPerhaps Hollywood is right, even if so many studies disagree. But, really, if it thinks it can just claim a certain feature is a "fundamental feature of the industry's business model," why does it then feel that there's absolutely no problem to leap into a totally different industry, and muck around with the "fundamental features" of that "industry's business model"? What an incredible sense of entitlement. The MPAA wants the law to keep its business model in place permanently... but if anyone else even dares to ask why Hollywood is trying to muck with their own business model, everyone gets attacked as being misinformed shills.
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: business models, europe, fundamental, movies, pipa, release windows, sopa
Companies: mpa, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The concept of a fair use voiding it makes perfect sense.
If copyright holders don't have a right to force consumers to watch tv shows at a specific time and date (as the timeshifting rules prove)
Then there is no logical reason why they should have a right to force consumer to watch movies in a specific location. Similarly to time shifting if they try and enforce such a business model, they should lose the right to restrict competitors who want to provide unauthorized "access shifting"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No business shall ever be forced to do business in a manner that they don't want to. If a restaurant won't serve you a steak, because they a vegetarian place, can you force them to make a steak? No. Can you force them to serve you in your living room, and not at their business establishments? no.
Making a product available in a limited manner (theatrical distribution only) is what Mike would refer to as "selling the scarce". At each level of "windowing", the amount of the scarce good is increased, until finally it is released for general sale (as a DVD). It's exactly the selling the scarce concept that is at the root of Techdirt, but Mike doesn't like it because it doesn't match up with his agenda on copyright.
The movie companies don't force you to do anything. They offer movies in certain ways at certain times, and you the consumer gets to choose if you will or will not pay to view it under those conditions. You aren't forced at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, I never really understood the term "Straw Man" until now.
(Did I do that right?)
And by the way, it is artificial scarcity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
.....and steak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look at the time shifting and the VCR, copyright holders were not forced to provide on demand distribution of TV shows
They however were prevented from stopping a company (sony)who wanted to sell a device (betamax) that provided such service.
The same principle would apply if access shifting became a fair use.
A company (the pirate bay) would not be prevented from providing a service (torrents) that allowed access shifting.
If the copyright holder choose not to compete by offering something within that window, that their option.
Just like it was there option not to provide on demand services when the vcr first came out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For example producing high quality (6 spectrum color movie broadcasts) or Glassesless 3D.
Quality so good that the crappy cam version found on torrents would not be a good enough substitute.
Of course if such technology percolated down from the theaters to the home market, the entire economy would benefit with the creation of all those new devices.
And if they did not, theaters would have a permanent competitive advantage which would technologically stop piracy by making an always inferior substitute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They think all money they do not currently control is disposable income and should be redirected to them. Hell it would all be theirs already if it wasn't for you blasted kids and that stupid dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. 3d that you have in the theater now is a pathetic subset of what could be there if best 3d technology were implemented.
The reason you have crappy 3d is because theaters are not forced to compete against dvd/pvr etc.
If they were forced to compete, then they would use the best technology available to maximize their competitive advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And so they do, at least outside of theatres.
"Rereleases in 3d would be epic failures that would not cover the cost of conversion. Both of those conditions have not happen yet"
Actually, less people go to see 3D movies -- it's just that the the price is jacked up.
"2. 3d that you have in the theater now is a pathetic subset of what could be there if best 3d technology were implemented."
Whatever. 3D is a fad which will eventually die out. Standard HD TVs still outsell 3D ones by a considerable margin.
"The reason you have crappy 3d is because theaters are not forced to compete against dvd/pvr etc."
Again, most people don't care. If there's a film they want to watch, they'll go see it, regardless of whether or not it's in 3D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? The movie isn't suddenly worth $15 for one viewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would not be forced to choose between not having it at all and paying $15 for it.
of course people who would want to see it in 3d would pay that market defined price. ($15 or whatever it would be after competition against other mediums were taken into account).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Around my parts, they do, consistently. I don't know about profits, but in terms of butts-in-seats. I can tell because whenever a new 3D movie comes out, there are at least 3 times as many screens showing the 2D version as the 3D version.
I disagree. I think the reason you have crappy 3D is because they couldn't make money on it if they went to the expense of making it high-quality 3D. Not enough people really care if a movie is 3D (even for action movies, which are the only ones where 3D can actually improve the experience), and lots prefer 2D regardless of quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel the problem with 3D is simply the quality of the releases. I've got a 3D TV (didn't go looking for one, just happened to upgrade the TV and they come with 3D now) and the problem is the lack of content. Hell you still can't buy Avatar in 3D. Talk about windowing, how does making the most popular 3D movie of all time unavailable for purchase make any sense?
The Pirate Bay has copies available in 3D. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
glasses or no, if you have eye problems that cause your stereoscpic vision to be non-standard, it simply renders the product in question unuseable.
i don't give a damn about movies because i haven't bothered with them since i was a kid (they priced themselves way out of what i could justify spending on them long ago, and the effort of going isn't worth it either.) but the push to use it as the 'next big thing' in Gaming is... aggravating.
(basically, my depth perception is significantly based on mental tricks with peripheral vision and shadows. which isn't going to help me on a Screen, so all the illusion of 3D does is stuff up my ability to see the 2D image. i'm actually on an even field in this reguard on a computer or tv screen using standard 2D)
i mean, i'm already screwed in any game that assumes an ability to tell the direction a sound is coming from (even if only L/R rather than surround) due to having lost all hearing in my left ear...
I'd rather not have my hobbies impinged upon by More tech that leaves me out in the cold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try putting up a racial bar - and see how far you get!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same principle if access shifting becomes a recognized fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. there is only one definition of fair use (the legal one)
for you to claim that it not fair use you would have to document exactly which one of the 4 conditions that interpretation violates in the context of the currently established fair uses.
simply saying that it doesn't qualify does cut it.
So which one of the 4 principles is violated so severely that it completely invalidates the status of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same principle if access shifting becomes a recognized fair use."
Whatever the case may be, that's the way Hollywood traditionally works. It's their chosen business model -- so be it. I take exception to them assuming that they can dictate how everybody else is supposed to run their websites, businesses and even what they can/cannot do with their computers/products. Hollywood does not = law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course businesses should, in some cases, be forced to do business in a manner they don't want to. Anti-discrimination, minimum ages for tobacco, booze, and porn, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But copyright is not a "private business", it is a government-granted monopoly and therefore inheres obligations and duties. Just as other government-granted monopolies (such as radio & TV stations, cable services, power companies, and utilities) sacrifice many of their free market options in exchange for that monopoly, so should copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So why is Hollywood attempting to do exactly THAT to the Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's essentially the question I posted earlier. Why should everybody else be held responsible to protect their products and their business model? What, is the internet powered by Hollywood? What gives them the right to go around other people's websites (technically someone else's property) and dictate the terms of service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, what is more parasitic than when corporations write legislation & treaties in secrecy in order to change the laws to fatten their wallets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the open access and power of instant connection that has lead to things like OWS and the Arab Spring and millions of other similar events in which the internet empowered people.
Sure the internet is not the people but without the people the internet is just cable tv. In much the same way that the without people the highway system is just giant useless slabs of concrete it is a codependent relationship. The internet gives us power and we give it meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the content companies have gained nothing from the internet.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, this one sentence encapsulates everything that is wrong with how content companies view the internet. The internet does not need commercial content at all. Internet companies don't need to make it any more than content companies do. People make content when they use the internet.
The internet is about communication, not consumption. The thing the internet needs to survive is not commercial content, but people talking to each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only parasites are the ones trying to impose a monopoly onto others and don't expecting a backlash.
The real parasites are the ones trying to destroy democracy so they can make a buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that like it's a bad thing.
So boycott the internet. Leave all of us pesky parasites (also known as customers) to wallow in the dark and dismal lands of the intertubes without the guiding light that is your content. Let me know how that goes for you.
Great! Everyone except Hollywood thinks this is awesome. Only those used to being the only game in town feel threatened by this.
Of course, you are completely right here. Amazon, Google and Netflix obviously have no idea how to make money on the internet. They are destined to fail spectacularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An example of the selling the scarce would be holding special screenings with the director and actors present; or for readers of techdirt perhaps a water dunking tank with MPAA lobbyists inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what Mike would refer to as "selling the scarce".
"Making a product available in a limited manner..." is called MANUFACTURING the scarcity of the product in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except the owner of the restaurant in this case is the public. The copyright holder is just a temp manager who given temporary management control over the restaurant under the sole understanding that it will BENEFIT the owner.
In this case, the public is both the owner and the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
that was a Terrible metaphor.
('course, the use you're responding to was pretty bad, but stretching it doesn't help :P)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't stop anybody from copying you if you are a restaurant owner, other can come in and offer what you didn't and you would fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Arduino is a multi million dollar company how did they did it if they can't stop other from copying and producing their own open source designs?
How was McDonalds able to become a multi billion dollar company when anybody can copy their recepies and sell those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone who talks about "this is a dead business model" or brings out the rusty old "buggy whip" scenarios seems to forget that business models die when they are not longer the best way to accomplish the goal, which is bottom line profitability and perpetuating the business itself.
Dropping windowing, which creates huge amounts of income in the movie industry, would be fine IF there was a better, more profitable business model somewhere else. Until you can actually point to that more profitable model, it's pretty hard to justify just closing down something that makes money, only to satisfy your need to "have it now".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, it's quite demonstrable that legislatively forcing technology companies to incorporate DRM directly into their products creates a huge burden on those technology companies, making their products less useful, stealing away developer time that's better spent designing new features and fixing bugs, creating huge headaches for tech support, and reducing the profit margin on each product.
Otherwise known as "the whole point of Mike's post"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Its a wonderful pyramid of lies and corruption and if you start taking out pieces the whole system falls down.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/business/la-fi-0203-time-warner-earns-20110202
http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, if they have a billion dollar business model, there is little reason to drop it for "huge amounts of income" if that income is only millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't need to waste my time if the MPAA and their cronies don't want my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you are saying is basic and true: If you can't get it the way you want it, don't buy it. Just don't use this as an excuse to pirate it 10 minutes later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that was true the movie industry would not care about windowing to prop up the theaters that will not compete on prices. Obviously there are tight ties or Hollywood would be happy to release their product direct to the customer on day 1.
I am glad you live somewhere with what is probably a small independently owned theater but for those of us whose only options are AMC or Loews (which are the same company anyway) the only thing available is a 10$+ ticket. Other than don't go see the move and forget about it by the time it comes out for rental and maybe find it on netflix in a couple years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is 2012 baby, your cable contracts and your windows mean less and less every single day.
The "problem" is, quite simply, not being addressed by those that have the means to address it and as such, given flow-control, somebody else will and has.
"I want it now" is not, necessarily, entitlement, it is reality. You can ignore this all you like, however, that, in and of itself, does not beget a different reality.
Digital media is trash - quite literally. It is consumed and subsequently thrown out to make room for more. If it's enjoyed it will be acquired and/or placed onto more permanent facilities that make it readily accessible on anything capable with the least amount of fuss.
You can choose to provide your wares or you can continue to believe that you are providing. The success of your business model is not contingent upon your customers abiding by it, it is contingent upon you executing it in a way that pleases your customers and addresses their needs. They are not pleased and now they have choices well beyond your realms of control.
You have a choice. What do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gotta love the cognitive dissonance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even the currently wounded and hurting movie and music industries, facing widespread piracy, are still making more money than any other business model out there.
Why would they hasten their own demise?
If things keep going the way they are, they will be out of business in 20 years or so. If they do it the Techdirt way, they will be out of business next week. The choice is pretty easy, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am a Business Major, I work in computers, your logic makes sense only to a lawyer who has no clue on reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny, no one told Fortune 500
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/101_200.html
Also the pet supplies industry makes about 4 times as much money. But keep sucking that fat hollywood cock, I'm sure it tastes rich and buttery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was talking to Cush the other day about all you pathetic pansy apologists who are too scared to compete, and he summed it up very well: "Take the game to the pirates you gold-plated wusses"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same thing that always happens with dinosaur companies, "The market is changing! NO, no, no we dominate the market don't let it change!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How many entertainment companies ever passed the $500 billion dollar mark in valuation?
Answer: Zero
How many tech companies passed that mark?
Answer: Microsoft, Cisco, Apple and GE.
Industries that depend on exclusion to survive should all die, cooperation is the way of the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the demand is not met, then the supply is going to come from other, sometimes less-legal sources. If you think you can have a supply model without taking demand into account, then I have an econ 101 class I'd like you to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Demand: simultaneous, global, multiplatform, drm-free release.
Business model: none of the above.
Problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
business model: can't do it at that price.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
business model: can't do it at that price while paying our top execs 40 million a year and having our sister companies triple charge us so we never have to pay royalties.
If we made X in the 80s we should make X+more now. No matter what happens with technology, market forces or anything ever."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's most DEFINITELY a fair pricing structure out there where people aren't being ripped off and the industry can make good money. The only thing is the big studios aren't going to make as much money in the process. Would you rather be in business, but have less overpaid middlemen, or be completely out of business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're operating off the false assumption that if Hollywood were to lower their exorbitant prices, somehow, their business would be put at risk. For one thing, Hollywood is already overcharging to go see a movie, hence one of the major reasons I stopped going. Sorry, $10-15 (plus overpriced appetizers/refreshments) for about two hours simply isn't worth it; I'd much rather watch something in the comfort of my own home. What is with all this rhetoric about "going out of business"? Hollywood is making BILLIONS of dollars. They're not going anywhere, so please stop playing the violin. I've heard the tune before and it's always nauseating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Going out of business" is the eventual ending point if they continue to screw over customers to the point where everyone agrees with you, that it is better to not bother than deal with them.
"Going out of business" doesn't mean I think they're losing tons of money and if they don't change, they can't operate for the next week, month or year.
The idea in business is to make a change BEFORE it hits that point. Like, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The consumer doesn't care. Have you even studied economics? If your business can't supply it at that price, then you go out of business. That's how the whole supply/demand/constructive/destructive capitalism thing works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I simply don't believe that's true. I do believe it can't be done at that price while continuing to reap obscene profits, but that's a different thing.
However, if it really can't be done at that price, then the companies should, and will, go out of business. They should, and will, be replaced by new companies who can do it at that price. This is good & proper.
The bad thing, and the thing I chafe at, is that while these companies are scrambling to exist (or continue their obscene profits, whichever is true) they are causing a huge amount of collateral damage to society at large and innocent individuals. That's what needs to stop. I'd prefer that this be fixed by helping the companies into the 21st century, but if it requires they go out of business, well, that works too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is a classic WTF moment.
It's pretty tough to have a profitable business model if the consumer demands to have it now?!?!?!
In ANY other business this would be a gold mine.
Oh well, doesnt matter since you seem to think that the industry is going out of business sooner or later anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, when it's "have it now at a price much lower than people are willing to pay for scarce movie theater seats".
If you sell steak for $0.10 a pound, trust me, you will have consumer demand. But your business will die trying to support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/02/business/la-fi-ct-burke-20110402
http ://www.therichest.org/entertainment/vanityfairtop-40-highest-paid-stars-in-hollywood/
Boohoo hoo! I can't think of anyways to cut costs around here, boohoo. Please don't shrink my profit margin, we are just scrapping by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct because the cost of making the steak, raising the cow, has a cost.
Making digital media, past the cost of production of the movie/song there is no cost. So my option is wait a few months, pay for the cost of CD media, shipping, and a hefty profit to the label, or, see it now, pay nothing for abit lower quality, and then wait for the cost to drop down lower to a price I can more handle to buy the physical media.
But YOU feel give me the following options means the labels will go out of business sooner...
Giving me a great quality digital good that I can watch now, for a smaller price (heck even for the same price) where there is no overhead cost to the label, or download a lower quality copy for free
Your numbers don't work. I bet they will SELL more digital copies on impulse buys alone than they would have sold with their current business model.
Your belief that everyone that downloads illegal torrents do it so they don't need to pay for it. I feel that thought process is flawed. I know many "free-tards" that do end up going out and buying that DVD when it comes out especially if they liked it. If they didn't like it that much, they wait for second hand or when the price is reduced. it costs much less to produce a digital good than a physical good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not mentioning the fact that those business have recurring costs for producing those things which doesn't happen with digital content where the only cost to produce it is the initial cost and that is it after that is just a matter of finding ways to get people to pay little by little more and more, so the price can be dropped to $0.001 and still be profitable, that is what people pay for each cable channel today.
Low prices also stimulate shorter time for recurring expending which doesn't happen with higher prices that increase the time between expendings, so there is that.
There is also the factor that lower prices causes less complains, while if a product is priced high people will complain a lot more about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Millions will learn to respect copyright and create some self control.
Self control may be the best thing that would happen to consumers, they will learn that copyright is just BS and find legal free open alternatives and start to develop their own entertainment leaving behind the schmucks that believe a monopoly is a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm glad you added sometimes.
Personally, I hate the movie theater. Food is over-priced, people don't shut up, hard to find seats in a good position unless it's a movie no one cares about.
I don't even really like TV anymore. Commercials are lame. We pretty much use Netflix exclusively; if it's not on Netflix or maybe Hulu, I just don't watch it.
And what do I do to get entertainment then? I go play video games. Left 4 Dead 2 has cost me about 1 cent per hour so far.
Moral of the story: if you don't provide your customers with what they want, they'll spend their money elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not legislation that props it up, it's you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, is it up to you to try to spin it that your system is fine and people should not ever change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
INFRINGEMENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At the same time, they won't experiment, because experimenting means that they have to try something which doesn't guarantee their present profit levels.
This is surely the definition of a dinosaur industry, willing itself into extinction by refusing to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's take a look at some good windowing.
1) We have the theatrical release.
2) The movie is made for purchase/viewing on a variety of platforms 3 months later.
Now let's look at bad windowing:
1) The theatrical release.
2) The pay per view release 3 months later.
3) The DVD release with rental embargo 1 month later.
4) Rental embargo is lifted 2 months later.
5) iTunes release 4 months later.
6) Hulu/Netflix/Whatever streaming release 2 years later.
You will notice the difference here. In the first example we are capturing the vast majority of the market as quickly as possible. In the second example we are stretching out the time it takes for certain segments of the market to get the product. The longer it takes for the streaming market to get the product, the more likely they are to pirate rather than wait or buy.
Add to these windows regional restrictions and you have amplified the problem to a factor of 10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Beyond that point, it's subject to agreements in place, and as well as price point. If you paid more at Itunes for the product, it could likely be there sooner (as it would be a good business decision). Making it available at Itunes cheaply makes it harder to sell the DVDs, because you canalization your DVD market.
Look at your 1 step suggest, and now tell me how you would price point each market to avoid killing the larger sources of income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The best business models should make the most money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is like saying if all car dealer just started making their cars out of gold and selling them for 2,000,000 a piece they would be better off.
You have to give the market what it wants, it doesn't matter if its more profitable for you. We don't care. As long as you can make A profit you have nothing to complain about. Sorry they can't do business like they did 20 years ago, shit happens.
Home computers used to cost 3,000 a pop. When prices for manufacturing came down so did the consumer's bill. Would you argue that HP would be better off selling outdated parts that no one wants for 3,000 and have legislation written to make sure its the only legal option while agreeing with all other computer retailers to sell their computers at the same rate? This would be more profitable than selling 250$ laptops.
The best business models should be profitable while providing a valued service or product to a satisfied customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is nothing to dispute in this statement. It is not incorrect. However, as you point out, the thinking behind the statement is flawed.
The most money (sustainable profits) cannot be made by creating artificial scarcity and then legislating or litigating customers into compliance.
The most money cannot be made by refusing to adapt to a changing business environment.
The most money can be made by innovating and being a LEADER in an industry.
The way forward is risky for sure, and we know that today's Hollywood is somewhat risk averse. But as with all things the big risk can reap a big reward.
What confuses me is that Hollywood does this already: a small fraction of big budget films succeed so wildly that they make up for any failures. Couldn't they try ten different business models and see which ones consistently make the most money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Theatrical release.
2) When it finishes its' theatrical run, release for every platform at the same time.
Start off charging a reasonable price for the download (so if a DVD is priced at $20, then maybe start the download at $10-15), then as the actual price for the DVD drops, drop the digital price as well.
On the Netflix front, maybe there needs to be some kind of "premium" service there as well, where subscribers pay a bit more a month if they want day 1 releases available for streaming/disc rental (and yes, they should be streaming day 1 as well). Same for ala carte rentals, charge a premium for day 1 rentals.
The point is, people have made it VERY clear they want it now. Start working your model to make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From what I seen with Anime's the piracy is what drove the sales and further expansion of market places for them around the world.
There is this funny thing that people do, that when they like something they want to own a piece and don't have to walk to the store to rent it, they also start buying every piece of crappy merch that appears on the market, meaning they spend all they can either way so what does it matter that it cannibalizes DVD sales?
Let it die and keep capitalizing on the other forms.
Should we still be using VHS tapes? 8-Track? Wax Cylinders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad windowing model
O.o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad windowing model
Making any particular production "unprofitable" is a counter-intuitive motivation that I can't really wrap my head around. Yet we've seen enough examples of Hollywood and record company accounting that it is almost certainly at play here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Selling hotdogs for 500$ a piece is also a good way to maximize profits, doesn't sound like a good business plan though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, movie theater tickets average $7.50 - and the average movie rental is about $2-$3. Your hot dog example, scaled to this would suggest that the regular retail price of a hotdog is about $150. Sorry, but you fail.
What they are doing is selling a hotdog for about $4.50, which is similar pricing to what you might pay at an airport, an amusement park, or other area where competition is limited and the product is "scarce".
If you are going to try to make a point, at least try to be reasonable doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is the color of the sky in your alternate world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you want me to be reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since people have acquired the ability to route around such restrictions I don't see how this will survive much longer, not even the law will stop it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about a per capita revenue comparison between U.S. release and international windowed release? Would that satisfy your quest for a comparable "new" business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you think? 7/10, maybe 8/10?
Ok, ok, I'm hoping for at least a 9/10 to be honest, I've always liked being an A student...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft, Cisco, Exxon Mobil?
The only companies in history to make pass the $500 billion dollar mark?
See there most of the really big business are all tech companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood Accounting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's been tried before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's been tried before
But nothing in that article says anything about "failure".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's been tried before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's been tried before
Um. First of all that doesn't say it failed. I followed the Bubble story closely and if it "failed" it failed because the theaters freaked out and refused to show it in theaters, so it wasn't a true simultaneous release.
Besides, a single film failing in this model isn't a condemnation of the model. It might just be a condemnation of that movie. I'm sure some movie was released the traditional way last week and made very little money. Is that condemnation of the traditional model?
If DONE RIGHT, simultaneous release would almost certainly make more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are hopeless. Hollywood simply needs to die, and be replaced by a better system and ecosystem for making movies, cheaper and more innovative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entitled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, lol - why would I pay $35.00 for a single movie?
I pay LESS than that for Cinemax premium on-demand and can watch a ton of movies a month. For $35.00 I could add another movie channel too.
Or just spend $2.00 and buy a used DVD, lol
Maybe not high def, but the wallet stays fatter. Clear easy choice for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to comment 3.
For all you Non-Pirates out there who don't need to know the answer right now, don't read any further.
Pirates or Consumers who like On-Demand features: The answer is the internet. Utilize it, Monitize it, Grow richer on a worldwide scale faster, cheaper, and more often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Law
Senator Orrin Hatch suggests the Government start blowing up computers without due process- this is where IP Law will lead in this brilliant technological world. http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]