Als o, the method of production that has a bit player come in 5 days to film for 2 minutes each day could probably be altered to make more efficient use of HR and lower cost. I guess I'm no expert, so I shouldn't argue that too much. But I do know business, and there are normally operation efficiencies that can be found when budgets get cut.
For anyone economist (like myself) who would argue that the supply of actors would dry up if we didn't remunerate them well, I simply need to point to the droves of amateur actors in local productions, ALL willing to work for free. But I suppose we might not have talented stars like Jennifer Simpson or Lindsay Lohan if we didn't offer the big bucks! Ha. Sure, actors should get paid for their work. I'm not saying they should work for free. I'm saying there are thousands willing to work for free, and we might be overpaying the stars.
Gone With The Wind, a bestseller, sold screen rights for $50,000. It was the biggest blockbuster production of its time, costing over $4M to make. http://www.filmsite.org/gone.html
I personally value writers above actors, but with time on his hands in the tank, it seems like Tupac would have written the script with or without an $11M incentive to his estate.
My conclusion is, Hollywood is drunk on funding. With this much money around, they spend it. They pay the execs massive salaries, and they bid up star actor and screenwriter fees. Do they scout out the best actors and screenplays? Nah, they have to find the bankable stars, or else they'll never get their investment back...the investment they had to make to get the bankable starts. Kind of a tautology.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But ISPs DO Take Cloud Services Into Account
The fiber is great, but very limited in reach.
The faster DSL, as I had said before, is limited by the capacity of the ISPs peering points with Tier 1 carriers. You can pay more, for sure, and your last mile DSL connection will be up to 28Mbps...but you may not actually get any "faster Internet". That is not guaranteed in the ToS or SLA.
The band also spent a fair amount of time shooting down licensing requests and otherwise making their catalog about as approachable as a HONEY badger covered in live hand grenades.
Re: Patronage: you mean fund shows that you KNOW you like.
Lots of wrong in there.
1) "just pretend that the marginal costs of distribution are /all/ that matter."
OK, so you didn't study econ. Let me help you out. For market pricing, marginal costs ARE what matter. In fact, they are all that matter. Here, don't take my word for it:
You don't have to like it, but it's mathematically proven, it's economic fact, and it turns out that it matches the markets behavior almost perfectly. To argue anything different is a fool's errant...but you're welcome to it if you must continue.
2) "You can't get shows beyond cocktail napkin level without BIG money"
Really? Did you even read the article under which you are posting? Have you heard of YouTube? Blair Witch? That Rodriguez director? These are sources of good content with little or no money. Then there are the "Big network" productions like reality shows, which suck, but are cheap to produce.
Re: "Who is gonna pay to produce them? What is the future?"
How the hell is that "boilerplate"?
Those ideas are radical to this backwards-looking industry. They have been extensively mocked because they are too forward-looking.
RE: cooks with sherry. Do you think we could not find any good actors if we didn't pay them $20 million for a film? Would JK Rowling not write her books if she didn't have a muti-million dollar deal? She famously wrote them just so her kids would have something to read. We could drop the costs of lavish productions significantly, and still have the same production values. Now, less ILM type of work would reduce the visual richness of the films. That might require us to use a little more of our imaginations. That might be OK, too.
Either way, less of something good isn't necessarily the wrong outcome. If that thing has been overcompensated for decades, we might be facing an oversupply (over optimal) right now.
I've been thinking about films pre 1970. You know, the special effects just weren't in that many films. Car chases were fewer, explosions were way down. Films like 12 Angry Men, or To Kill a Mockingbird looked like they could have been filmed on a few cheap sets.
Does this mean that there was no entertainment back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Hardly. The people loved their movies back then. Perhaps more (on a relative scale) than today. Art seemed to flourish, and writing was possibly more important than pyrotechnics. Yet these kinds of films, today, could be produced for a few grand.
So, would we, if patronage were the only funding scheme, return to an era where writing trumped ILM? Would that be a shame? And, what's more, I think that if the public bemoaned the lack of high-cost (boom, CGI) productions, the market would find ways to fund them. You see, the SCARCITY of those productions, if mated with some demand, would necessitate a payment scheme. I'd bet that far greater than 1% would participate.
I'm not saying a world with fewer big budget films would be better. I think "more art means some better art" and less funds means less art. But it doesn't sound much worse to me.
And the fact that we don't need government regimes to prop up economically-unsound business models, extend monopolies, and outlaw technological efficiencies seems pretty good to me. In fact, leveraging new efficiencies and reducing regulatory interference often results in better outcomes, in ways that people in the current timeframe can't yet envision.
That whole notion is also incorrect. I, for example, participate in many forms of media consumption. I currently do not "flattr" or provide patronage to any modern business model of film production financing. So that, I assume, would put me in the 99%.
However, I DO give Comcast $110 a month for content I barely watch. I watch 5 hours of TV a week, my 2 kids the same, and my wife, 0. We also occasionally go to the cinema, often go to live theater, and support fundraisers for the arts. I buy some licensed merch for my kids (ex: Nemo dolls, Disney clothes). I've bought plastic media. It seems I'm funding production quite a bit, but current measurement tools would put me in the "free rider" camp. BS!
If there were a better-established business model around patron-funding for content that I wanted to view, I'd probably be there with my wallet, too.
But for now, the $110/mo nut I pay through Comcast leaves me with a big fat "I gave at the office" feeling.
He believes in it, and believes that constant discussion and debate can move things forward. Sadly, you can't say the right thing once, and be done with it. The impact fades away. New people show up, and need to hear you say it again. You have to say it over, and over, and over. The "I have a dream" speech wasn't MLK's first. If you're gonna effect change, you can't let up.
It's fair to say that he derives some income from the discussion.
And he gets some amount of satisfaction. After a decade or more of banging his head against a wall...the wall is slowly giving way. I don't have his patience, but I imagine it feels good to see some amount of progress.
Not so! My dog is afraid of fluffy pieces of lint that move in the breeze.
Not afraid of cars. Not afraid of beehives. Not afraid of skunks. But fluffy lint. Yep, that's her deity.
What supernatural power she ascribes to that lint, I don't know. But I have considered putting her down for worshiping false idols. I think the god's name is "Ruff".
I'm not going to dig up the links for you, but there is a tested correlation between IQ and atheism / theism.
It lends some support to Greevar's point.
It by no means says that theists cannot be very intelligent or have tremendous ability to reason, just that there is a negative correlation between believing and IQ across a large dataset.
PS: Greevar successfully destroyed your argument that you cannot correlate reason with certain groups. What about the followers of that Harold Camping guy who though the world would end this spring. When it didn't, most of them just modified their calculations, and continued believing. They are Christians...but not a very reasonable bunch. Many other more rational Christians made fun of them for being wacky.
Valid points, and time will tell. But what we suspect with patents is that sheer number is starting to represent power. With a legal regime that so strongly favors patent holders, grands broad, vague patents, 14,000 could effectively cover EVERYTHING about a mobile phone. That's just like the stockpile of nuclear weapons could blow up the earth many times over, and why we draw the analogy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
It doesn't matter if the patents are precisely relevant, or if they remain valid after review, or if there was any prior art. What matters is whether you can use the patents to impede the progress of your rivals. Are the patents good enough to go to court? Are they even good enough for an injuction? If so, that's good enough. You don't have to win. There's no penalty for suing and losing.
And, since patents are deliberately written so broadly, and since the USPTO grants these vague, broad patents. It is highly likely that there will actually be a few winners within a treasure trove of 14,000. And these are the patents from the company that made the FIRST cellular phone. Make no mistake, despite what some may think of Motorola, they have contributed a tremendous amount of real innovation to the industry. And they've acquired a bunch of other companies that have some relevant IP, say Good Technology for example, or sync technology like Starfish or Zecter. Could it be that Apple's Wi-Fi sync violates some Motorola patent? Sure, why not, just as an example.
I promise you one thing, no practicing entity - not Apple, Microsoft, not Nokia, not Samsung - wants to have Google point that IP cannon at their face, and bet that they're just shooting blanks.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Unions and Actors must go
http://www.sag.org/digests-and-rate-sheets
However, like the teachers in Wisconsin, I'm not sure the unions are truly where the bulk of the money is wasted.
On the truly high-budget films, it is the $15-20 million required for the leading actors that eats up the actor budget, not the $700 for the bit players. Also, the $20M for screenplay rights to a best seller, when that occurs.
http://www.culture.com/news/item/4854/jackie-chan-joins-20-million-dollar-club.phtml
Als o, the method of production that has a bit player come in 5 days to film for 2 minutes each day could probably be altered to make more efficient use of HR and lower cost. I guess I'm no expert, so I shouldn't argue that too much. But I do know business, and there are normally operation efficiencies that can be found when budgets get cut.
For anyone economist (like myself) who would argue that the supply of actors would dry up if we didn't remunerate them well, I simply need to point to the droves of amateur actors in local productions, ALL willing to work for free. But I suppose we might not have talented stars like Jennifer Simpson or Lindsay Lohan if we didn't offer the big bucks! Ha. Sure, actors should get paid for their work. I'm not saying they should work for free. I'm saying there are thousands willing to work for free, and we might be overpaying the stars.
Gone With The Wind, a bestseller, sold screen rights for $50,000. It was the biggest blockbuster production of its time, costing over $4M to make.
http://www.filmsite.org/gone.html
A history of amounts paid for scripts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenwriter's_salary
Tupac Shakur's screenplay, written in prison, just sold for $11M.
http://dimewars.com/HipHopNews/Tupac-Shakur-s-Screenplay-Sold-For--11-million-.aspx?PressRele aseID=afa9f5ac-9948-4b15-bc13-a1680cea5b69
I personally value writers above actors, but with time on his hands in the tank, it seems like Tupac would have written the script with or without an $11M incentive to his estate.
My conclusion is, Hollywood is drunk on funding. With this much money around, they spend it. They pay the execs massive salaries, and they bid up star actor and screenwriter fees. Do they scout out the best actors and screenplays? Nah, they have to find the bankable stars, or else they'll never get their investment back...the investment they had to make to get the bankable starts. Kind of a tautology.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Artificial exclusivity
I had a ski instructor who would look at a steep couloir, tell me the approach he suggested, then say "careful, it can be tricky", then nail it.
It was tricky, but it was not ironic. Painful, yes, ironic, no.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Sped up video
What's more, that function seems to me to be better suited as a feature of the player software.
I use a player on my Android phone that offers sped up video. It's useful on a short flight with a long movie.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Artificial exclusivity
For example, the invention and production of antibiotics can be tricky. But it can be done, was done, was done well, and was a good thing.
Ergo, not ironic at all. Logic, we learn from you, "can be tricky" too.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But ISPs DO Take Cloud Services Into Account
The faster DSL, as I had said before, is limited by the capacity of the ISPs peering points with Tier 1 carriers. You can pay more, for sure, and your last mile DSL connection will be up to 28Mbps...but you may not actually get any "faster Internet". That is not guaranteed in the ToS or SLA.
On the post: Clear & Concise Explanation Of The Problem With Patents
Re: Re: Re:
They can quote current IP laws.
On the post: Is Talking About The Beatles As A Wonderful 'Shared Experience' Really Wise In An Anti-Piracy PSA?
Honey Badgers Eat Hand Grenades
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
FTFY
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Re: Re: T-shirts
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Re: Patronage: you mean fund shows that you KNOW you like.
Didn't Justin Bieber start on YouTube?
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: Patronage: you mean fund shows that you KNOW you like.
1) "just pretend that the marginal costs of distribution are /all/ that matter."
OK, so you didn't study econ. Let me help you out. For market pricing, marginal costs ARE what matter. In fact, they are all that matter. Here, don't take my word for it:
http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/cfa-exam/level-1/microeconomics/cfa14.asp#axzz1VSGO1R H0
You don't have to like it, but it's mathematically proven, it's economic fact, and it turns out that it matches the markets behavior almost perfectly. To argue anything different is a fool's errant...but you're welcome to it if you must continue.
2) "You can't get shows beyond cocktail napkin level without BIG money"
Really? Did you even read the article under which you are posting? Have you heard of YouTube? Blair Witch? That Rodriguez director? These are sources of good content with little or no money. Then there are the "Big network" productions like reality shows, which suck, but are cheap to produce.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Re: "Who is gonna pay to produce them? What is the future?"
Those ideas are radical to this backwards-looking industry. They have been extensively mocked because they are too forward-looking.
RE: cooks with sherry. Do you think we could not find any good actors if we didn't pay them $20 million for a film? Would JK Rowling not write her books if she didn't have a muti-million dollar deal? She famously wrote them just so her kids would have something to read. We could drop the costs of lavish productions significantly, and still have the same production values. Now, less ILM type of work would reduce the visual richness of the films. That might require us to use a little more of our imaginations. That might be OK, too.
Either way, less of something good isn't necessarily the wrong outcome. If that thing has been overcompensated for decades, we might be facing an oversupply (over optimal) right now.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
Pre 1970 Content
Does this mean that there was no entertainment back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Hardly. The people loved their movies back then. Perhaps more (on a relative scale) than today. Art seemed to flourish, and writing was possibly more important than pyrotechnics. Yet these kinds of films, today, could be produced for a few grand.
So, would we, if patronage were the only funding scheme, return to an era where writing trumped ILM? Would that be a shame? And, what's more, I think that if the public bemoaned the lack of high-cost (boom, CGI) productions, the market would find ways to fund them. You see, the SCARCITY of those productions, if mated with some demand, would necessitate a payment scheme. I'd bet that far greater than 1% would participate.
I'm not saying a world with fewer big budget films would be better. I think "more art means some better art" and less funds means less art. But it doesn't sound much worse to me.
And the fact that we don't need government regimes to prop up economically-unsound business models, extend monopolies, and outlaw technological efficiencies seems pretty good to me. In fact, leveraging new efficiencies and reducing regulatory interference often results in better outcomes, in ways that people in the current timeframe can't yet envision.
On the post: A Response To Felicia Day On How Video Gets Funded In A Fragmented, Digital World
1%...Not True
That whole notion is also incorrect. I, for example, participate in many forms of media consumption. I currently do not "flattr" or provide patronage to any modern business model of film production financing. So that, I assume, would put me in the 99%.
However, I DO give Comcast $110 a month for content I barely watch. I watch 5 hours of TV a week, my 2 kids the same, and my wife, 0. We also occasionally go to the cinema, often go to live theater, and support fundraisers for the arts. I buy some licensed merch for my kids (ex: Nemo dolls, Disney clothes). I've bought plastic media. It seems I'm funding production quite a bit, but current measurement tools would put me in the "free rider" camp. BS!
If there were a better-established business model around patron-funding for content that I wanted to view, I'd probably be there with my wallet, too.
But for now, the $110/mo nut I pay through Comcast leaves me with a big fat "I gave at the office" feeling.
On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft
Re: Re:
Don't forget to book'em for breathing air for nothing. That's stealing.
And don't forget to have 'em pay for their mother's love. That's of great value, but they didn't pay!! Assuming, of course, they received it.
On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft
Re: Will truth ever actually prevail?
He believes in it, and believes that constant discussion and debate can move things forward. Sadly, you can't say the right thing once, and be done with it. The impact fades away. New people show up, and need to hear you say it again. You have to say it over, and over, and over. The "I have a dream" speech wasn't MLK's first. If you're gonna effect change, you can't let up.
It's fair to say that he derives some income from the discussion.
And he gets some amount of satisfaction. After a decade or more of banging his head against a wall...the wall is slowly giving way. I don't have his patience, but I imagine it feels good to see some amount of progress.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Read his post. That's what he said.
But your explanation holds merit. The humble one's don't proselytize.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: The Faux Decider
Bill O'Reilly get's to decide who is Christian and who is not. Here's how it goes:
Norwegian mass murderer: not
People who watch Bill O'Reilly: yes
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Not afraid of cars. Not afraid of beehives. Not afraid of skunks. But fluffy lint. Yep, that's her deity.
What supernatural power she ascribes to that lint, I don't know. But I have considered putting her down for worshiping false idols. I think the god's name is "Ruff".
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
It lends some support to Greevar's point.
It by no means says that theists cannot be very intelligent or have tremendous ability to reason, just that there is a negative correlation between believing and IQ across a large dataset.
PS: Greevar successfully destroyed your argument that you cannot correlate reason with certain groups. What about the followers of that Harold Camping guy who though the world would end this spring. When it didn't, most of them just modified their calculations, and continued believing. They are Christians...but not a very reasonable bunch. Many other more rational Christians made fun of them for being wacky.
On the post: What Google Gets With Motorola Mobility
Re: NOT useful patents
It doesn't matter if the patents are precisely relevant, or if they remain valid after review, or if there was any prior art. What matters is whether you can use the patents to impede the progress of your rivals. Are the patents good enough to go to court? Are they even good enough for an injuction? If so, that's good enough. You don't have to win. There's no penalty for suing and losing.
And, since patents are deliberately written so broadly, and since the USPTO grants these vague, broad patents. It is highly likely that there will actually be a few winners within a treasure trove of 14,000. And these are the patents from the company that made the FIRST cellular phone. Make no mistake, despite what some may think of Motorola, they have contributed a tremendous amount of real innovation to the industry. And they've acquired a bunch of other companies that have some relevant IP, say Good Technology for example, or sync technology like Starfish or Zecter. Could it be that Apple's Wi-Fi sync violates some Motorola patent? Sure, why not, just as an example.
I promise you one thing, no practicing entity - not Apple, Microsoft, not Nokia, not Samsung - wants to have Google point that IP cannon at their face, and bet that they're just shooting blanks.
Next >>