I just figured it was a case of Stockholm Syndrome. The victims somehow come to admire their captors, but they realize the terrible thing that happened to them and have to blame SOMEONE for it.
Jazz musicians can't get compulsory licenses. The art of sampling records in hip-hop was all but destroyed by expensive licensing. Soul music only thrived in an environment where copyright wasn't strictly enforced...
I understand the suggestion that Hulu isn't going to get people to pay for something they can get for free -- or that they're already paying for one way or another. But Hulu could still make this work if they do three things:
1.) Make the paid version commercial free.
2.) Allow set-top box makers (Roku, Boxee, etc.) to access the Hulu subscription service.
3.) Offer enough new content to differentiate itself from Netflix.
Because a set-top box that offers Netflix and Hulu for a combined $20/month -- plus a variety of quality sports packages for extra -- would be a very compelling offering for many people. The only question is whether big media is willing to make that step. Sadly, I suspect they aren't, because they have so much money invested in the status quo of cable and satellite TV, and they fear that making this move would cost them too much money -- short-sighted, but typical.
This is also why I think Apple TV is still a "hobby." If Apple developed Apple TV into something really compelling, they would get a nigh-unbearable amount of push-back from cable & phone companies, who are both ISPs and TV providers, and Apple TV would 1.) cost them TV customers, and 2.) fill their pipes with video they have no control over. But there are way too many issues surrounding that, like the need for more broadband competition.
Wouldn't the biggest beneficiaries of this be the domain dealers like GoDaddy, who could drop $500,000 on a TLD like .music, then find a million people willing to buy a .music domain for $29.95/year?
The more I look at this lawsuit, the more I think Apple is telling the world, "The Nexus One is better than the iPhone, and we can't compete with it, so we're going to make it more expensive for them to sell their product, rather than try to improve our own product."
And that's when things start going downhill. IMHO, Apple would have been better off using its $40B cash reserves to get out of its exclusivity deal with AT&T and introducing CDMA/EVDO iPhones.
I wonder if this might have something to do with the ongoing "Green & Gold" protests against Malcolm Glazer, Man United's American owner who bought the club with borrowed money, then saddled the club with the entire debt and raised the price of everything to pay it off, which angered lot of supporters. Perhaps Glazer is trying to cut off any potential communication between players and protesters, which might result in someone saying something stupid that gets broadcast to the world. (Tom Hicks Jr. resigned from the Liverpool FC board recently after sending a profanity-laced email in reply to a fan.)
I'd bet a fiver that the RIAA won't accept this ruling. They'll demand that the original $9,250 per song verdict be reinstated -- mostly because $54K won't cover the lawyers fees.
After a decade of bad press, do you really think one more negative story is really going to stop the RIAA now?
I agree that this move won't increase DVD or Blu-ray sales, but the studios will just have to figure that out on their own. As long as they aren't bleeding cash like the recording industry is, they're not going to stray from this tactic.
I understand and agree with every argument about this artificial release window. It's not consumer-friendly, and the wait ends up reducing demand for rentals of new movies.
In the long run, though, how much does it really matter? Does the average Netflix customer really care *when* the movie is available for streaming? Sure, there will be some demand when commercials for the DVD start showing up on TV, but won't most people just look in and say, "Oh, let's see what's new," and go from there? Maybe I'm underestimating the public's patience for these things, but I just don't see the vast majority of Netflix subscribers pining for that sort of instant gratification -- especially if there are plenty more movies available and waiting to be discovered.
The studios have to know this. That's why they can get away with creating these windows, even if they aren't consumer-friendly and seem to be merely propping up old business models. We can rail against these windows until we're blue in the face, too, but with so many people still going to the cineplexes and still subscribed to Netflix, our complaints become little more than a fly's buzzing to the MPAA and its members.
Perhaps we should be less focused on the release windows and more focused on the broader issues associated with copyright, like ACTA and other attempts to force abhorrent laws and regulations down our throats. Release windows are silly and unnecessary, yes, but evil? That seems like a stretch to me. It's a business tactic, and it's one that plenty of people will begrudgingly accept in exchange for more viewing options overall.
Besides, if we don't like the MPAA, we can always stop watching movies, right?
If the MPAA's moves are such a recipe for failure, why does it seem like the movie industry is making more money than ever?
I mean, we keep hearing that the movie biz is booming in spite of all the MPAA's lies that piracy is killing their business. Piracy clearly isn't killing their business, but neither are any of the MPAA's anti-consumer business practices. So are they just succeeding in spite of themselves?
Google becomes the search engine for liberals, and Bing becomes the search engine for conservatives.
You know it's coming. Just sit back and watch the carnage.
And Rupert Murdoch has made TONS of money by making life more difficult for others. Just look at how much Sky Sports charges to show Premier League games in England, and how Sky has pushed most of its competitors out of that market, and you'll understand.
Sounds like what the RIAA did with those independent promoters. Let the indies pay the radio stations to play the records, and it skirts payola laws. Very nice.
According to IMDB, the last two Transformers movies grossed a combined $721M at the box office. That's *before* DVD sales, PPV and rentals, which is the other 75% of movie revenue.
It's going to be a VERY long time before Hollywood's business model implodes. Because America likes 'em big and stupid, and they'll put up with the BS to get what Hollywood spoon-feeds them.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: So .torrent doesn't equal .crime?
On the post: Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
New SGK slogan
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
"Why are our tax dollars being used to protect legacy entertainment industry companies that refuse to adapt?"
Just a guess. It's not like we have a manufacturing base in this country anymore.
Then again, maybe it's because Disney bought 'em all...
On the post: Ministry Of Sound Ditches File Sharing Lawsuits After It Finds Out That BT Actually Protects User Privacy
I've always liked BT as a DJ...
On the post: Media Campaign Against Craigslist Continues, As WaPo Writes Article About Its Own Anti-Craigslist Advertiser
On the post: Don Henley Hates YouTube; Complains That The Gov't Needs To Do Something
Just sayin'
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Hrmmm...
http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/thats_racist_animated1.gif
Just sayin'.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group Says: 'Child Porn Is Great' Since It Gets Politicians To Block File Sharing Sites
Nothing new
On the post: Is Hulu About To Find Out That There's Always Somewhere Else To Get Content Online?
I'm not ready to dismiss this yet.
1.) Make the paid version commercial free.
2.) Allow set-top box makers (Roku, Boxee, etc.) to access the Hulu subscription service.
3.) Offer enough new content to differentiate itself from Netflix.
Because a set-top box that offers Netflix and Hulu for a combined $20/month -- plus a variety of quality sports packages for extra -- would be a very compelling offering for many people. The only question is whether big media is willing to make that step. Sadly, I suspect they aren't, because they have so much money invested in the status quo of cable and satellite TV, and they fear that making this move would cost them too much money -- short-sighted, but typical.
This is also why I think Apple TV is still a "hobby." If Apple developed Apple TV into something really compelling, they would get a nigh-unbearable amount of push-back from cable & phone companies, who are both ISPs and TV providers, and Apple TV would 1.) cost them TV customers, and 2.) fill their pipes with video they have no control over. But there are way too many issues surrounding that, like the need for more broadband competition.
On the post: Canon Becomes The Online Equivalent Of Madonna Or Prince, Becoming The First Single Word Domain Holder
The biggest beneficiaries
On the post: Apple Goes Offensive On Patents: Sues HTC
Behind the lawsuit
And that's when things start going downhill. IMHO, Apple would have been better off using its $40B cash reserves to get out of its exclusivity deal with AT&T and introducing CDMA/EVDO iPhones.
On the post: Did Manchester United Ban Players From Using Social Networks... Or Alert People To Fake Accounts?
Greeen & Gold protests?
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
They won't accept it
After a decade of bad press, do you really think one more negative story is really going to stop the RIAA now?
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
Re:
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
How much do release windows really matter?
In the long run, though, how much does it really matter? Does the average Netflix customer really care *when* the movie is available for streaming? Sure, there will be some demand when commercials for the DVD start showing up on TV, but won't most people just look in and say, "Oh, let's see what's new," and go from there? Maybe I'm underestimating the public's patience for these things, but I just don't see the vast majority of Netflix subscribers pining for that sort of instant gratification -- especially if there are plenty more movies available and waiting to be discovered.
The studios have to know this. That's why they can get away with creating these windows, even if they aren't consumer-friendly and seem to be merely propping up old business models. We can rail against these windows until we're blue in the face, too, but with so many people still going to the cineplexes and still subscribed to Netflix, our complaints become little more than a fly's buzzing to the MPAA and its members.
Perhaps we should be less focused on the release windows and more focused on the broader issues associated with copyright, like ACTA and other attempts to force abhorrent laws and regulations down our throats. Release windows are silly and unnecessary, yes, but evil? That seems like a stretch to me. It's a business tactic, and it's one that plenty of people will begrudgingly accept in exchange for more viewing options overall.
Besides, if we don't like the MPAA, we can always stop watching movies, right?
On the post: If Movie Piracy Is Really A Problem, It's Hollywood's Fault
The irony of all this
I mean, we keep hearing that the movie biz is booming in spite of all the MPAA's lies that piracy is killing their business. Piracy clearly isn't killing their business, but neither are any of the MPAA's anti-consumer business practices. So are they just succeeding in spite of themselves?
On the post: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users
The worst possible outcome...
You know it's coming. Just sit back and watch the carnage.
And Rupert Murdoch has made TONS of money by making life more difficult for others. Just look at how much Sky Sports charges to show Premier League games in England, and how Sky has pushed most of its competitors out of that market, and you'll understand.
On the post: Could Redbox Crowdsource Its Way Around Movie Studio Blockades?
Re: Red Holdings
Sounds like what the RIAA did with those independent promoters. Let the indies pay the radio stations to play the records, and it skirts payola laws. Very nice.
On the other hand, we'd have to think up a new name for them, because "Red Holdings" would be too obviously related to Redbox somehow, and a certain Uzbek billionaire might just sue for trademark infringement.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: Don't Be Idiots; Don't Delay Movie Rentals
Keep dreaming
It's going to be a VERY long time before Hollywood's business model implodes. Because America likes 'em big and stupid, and they'll put up with the BS to get what Hollywood spoon-feeds them.
Next >>