posted
Indeed. But I bet a lot of people would pay an additional five to ten dollars a month on their subscription to be able to watch new-release movies say, one month after they entered theaters (instead of waiting until DVDs came out).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I want to see a movie, the size of the screen isn't always a factor to me. Big films such as Avatar, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings have to be seen in the theater to get the full experience.(in my opinion) Films like Superbad, Kick Ass, Sex and The City, (due to my wife) and most comedies or dramas do not exactly warrant a huge screen with Klipsch speakers. I'd rather watch it while laying on my couch.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Indeed. But I bet a lot of people would pay an additional five to ten dollars a month on their subscription to be able to watch new-release movies say, one month after they entered theaters (instead of waiting until DVDs came out).
Oh, five to ten a month? Sure, I'd go along with that.
That's completely different from $20 per movie, which was the situation I was responding to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sort of home version of the hotel industry's in-room programming where the movies still in theater (or just out) are available....yeah, I'd go for that too. I like the subscription model rather than the per-item model.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you do not want anyone to download your movie illegally, make a movie that people will want to buy.
Hummm... so it's my fault if I make an indie movie with an unusual and not-very marketable story? It's ok to steal that from me because you don't want to pay for it?
The problem in all of this is that people don't *think.* The studios and the downloaders- everybody's incredibly selfish.
You are missing my point. I never said it was ok. If you look at some Indie films like Blair Witch and Paranormal, (Well I consider them indie films) they made HUGE amounts of money. Why? Because people wanted to watch them.
Sorry, I don't think I missed your point. Those movies made lots of money because they attracted investors. There was not much about them that guarenteed their success any other way. There are plenty of examples of films that are hugely popular that didn't make back their modest budgets. People want to watch office space, but it took that film years in VHS and DVD release to break even, because it didn't have an advertising budget.
The problem with your premise is just that- the money required to *make* people want to see a film has to be worth it. For some movies it just isn't- some movies are very, very good, and do not have good profit potential. When and where people started believing that films existed for the purposes of making money and not art I am not sure, but it's sad to see. There is a film business, but film is not itself a business. You do not have a right to, nor should you expect, anything that you don't desperately want to be free. So hanging that responsibility on the filmmakers is silly, fullstop. Nobody has a responsibility to be popular- if you don't defend these people's rights, then you risk losing what they have to give.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Sort of home version of the hotel industry's in-room programming where the movies still in theater (or just out) are available....yeah, I'd go for that too. I like the subscription model rather than the per-item model.
HBO costs me, I think, $12 a month extra. Each individual new release is $5 On Demand. We rent two new movies a month and watch a ton once they hit HBO. I'd be a happy camper if HBO got them a little faster than they do now. Or if I replaced HBO with a different channel that gets movies fast.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue all of your suggestions for altered payment plans are actually evidence that things are going to radically change in the coming decades.
All of your suggestions are for lower prices and faster releases. Why are you able to demand these things? Because it's all digital media. While theatre ticket prices have a great deal more room to maneuver - because theatres have something to sell other than the movie - HBO and DVDs have to reckon with the simple fact that there is an effectively infinite supply of their product. No scarcity, no value. This is the future, and all the moralizing in the world won't stop it. History marches on, and its soundtrack is a pirated copy of Dragon Forces' Through the Fire and Flames.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said nothing would radically change? I've said the technology wouldn't radically change, and that companies would still make profits from digital distribution. Of course the nature of digital distribution will change (and is changing) the game, with much greater immediacy and much lower marginal costs.
It is rather a larger step to go from "change" to "nobody at all will be able to make profit from digital distribution", which is the claim you've been making. You seem to be basing your position on some sort of vision of the future rather than looking at the evidence, where you'll see that while some sorts of digital distribution are beleaguered, others are doing quite well (despite the ease of illegal file sharing).
quote:It is rather a larger step to go from "change" to "nobody at all will be able to make profit from digital distribution", which is the claim you've been making.
Well, if you're going to use quotation marks, you might as well copy/paste what I actually said. I said no one would be able to demand payment for digital material. There will always be people that will want to buy physical items; I, for one, despise reading books on computer screens (even high-end e-book readers) and will always always buy books, even if i can get them for free from gigapedia.
What I mean is, digital material will be viewed in a way something akin to water. Yes, people will always buy and sell bottled water, but their kitchen tap is only a few feet away. The analogy is not perfect, which is why I haven't brought it up before, but does it help you see what I'm getting at?
Digital material will always be profitable, but the profit will come from the physical material is is delivered on. The actual information itself? Come on guys, everything is over but the crying: this sort of material absolutely resists the concept of private property.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Digital material will always be profitable, but the profit will come from the physical material is is delivered on.
So your assertion is that there will be some master subscription price as part of internet access? If not, what physical material are you referring to?
And the idea remains extremely unlikely. People's media consumption patterns are too varied. While I fully expect subscription models to be common, complete bundling will not be how it will happen.
(edit: and it still is backing off from "stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material", plus being inconsistent with several models that are working successfully in the face of illegal downloading).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So your assertion is that there will be some master subscription price as part of internet access? If not, what physical material are you referring to?
I'm not referring to any sort of internet subscription. I mean books, CDs, and DVDs - the actual physical items themselves. There will always be people who prefer physical books that they can put on a shelf, dog-ear and note up. Hipsters will always want to impress people with their CD collections. Box set DVDs will always look pretty on shelves. The actual physical items are what people will pay for, not the information contained in them; just like no one actually pays for the water inside a bottle -- rather, they pay for the convenience and the alleged purity.
And, again, I said people will stop demanding profit from digital material. I mean there will be no more of these silly lawsuits.
These are my concrete predictions: over the course of the next few decades, let's say 30 or 40 years, DVD & CD sales will dwindle, but still be worth producing for the above reasons. Musicians will earn a far greater proportion of their income from live concerts than they do now. Movie theatres will continue to be popular, probably popular enough to support gimmicky blockbusters like Avatar 3-D. Broadcast and cable television budgets will also dwindle, killing off a lot of mid-range quality programing. I can't make predictions for the book publishing industry because I have no idea how many people share my hate of screen reading.
Basically, current trends wildly magnified. Sooner or later, people will realize that there is an effectively limitless supply of digital material, and that very lack of scarcity means old rules of private property simply do not apply to it.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, are you or are you not arguing that nobody will pay for downloaded movies and music? That's the central area of contention, which you did not deal with directly in that post. You seem to imply it, though.
Given the long history of lawsuits for all sorts of reasons relating to distribution of content, dating back a couple of thousand years, I am entirely comfortable predicting that there will still be lawsuits about unauthorized distribution in 30 or 40 years. Certain aspects of copyright law might relax, but it will remain around in some form; indeed, it will become increasingly important.
And there are a lot of people who will be happy to hear they don't pay water bills. While there are higher costs for bottled water associated with convenience and such, people do pay for water, by how much they use. If you want to use an analogy like that, I'd try for something a little better (or realize that the lack of truly analogous products suggests that perhaps, just perhaps, the future won't be like you imagine).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Look at Blizzard Entertainment. You never see any form of DRM on their games. The reason? People WANT to buy their games. They work hard on them and they make a quality product that everyone wants. I could easily download Starcraft 2, but I went down to my local Gamestop and plopped $100 down for the Collectors Edition.
Geraine: This is wrong. Blizzard's games are coupled inherently with anti-piracy measures related to online connectivity. You couldn't 'easily download' a copy of SC2 and expect to have accessibility to Bnet, which would render the exercise mostly moot. You couldn't even play the single player campaign until a workaround came for constant connectivity. It would be like trying to pirate WoW. Client = easy. Access to server = hard.
Any and all Blizzard games where connectivity isn't required? Thieved to hell and back, specifically BECAUSE people wanted to play them. Even ones from the early days of 0-days and romz (Diablo II, etc).
Piracy has grown to the point where it is actually choking the life out of indie game-making.
quote:So, are you or are you not arguing that nobody will pay for downloaded movies and music? That's the central area of contention, which you did not deal with directly in that post. You seem to imply it, though.
I suppose I'm not being as clear as I'd like.
Digital information will cease to be seen as private property. This is a radical change. It will be the first time in human history that a product of labor will not fall under the category of private property.
This is the reason that the water analogy fails, because digital information is unique - though I'd point out that hydro bills, in this analogy, would be equivalent to ISP fees.
quote:I am entirely comfortable predicting that there will still be lawsuits about unauthorized distribution in 30 or 40 years.
I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there will be some adjustment period, but when quality drops, people will realize that you get what you pay for and paying for entertainment will come back in some form. The exact nature, I don't know, but in order to get high quality, people need to be paid- even in fields that are about love. For example, I love to write. If I have no hope of making money, I'll still write, but I probably would drop the crit partners and just write until I am happy, so lower quality.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
I absolutely disagree with Rand about intellectual monopoly. Gasp! How shocking!
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we all agree that in a generation or two this entire debate will be over, and people will stop pretending that it is possible to demand profit from digital material?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
New regulatory measures (but definitely not what we have now) might keep data from ending up that way, so I'm not exactly confident that's where this will go.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After re-reading foust's deal over carefully, I wanna change my position to "I'm not confident that's where this will go" to a much less ambiguous "That is totally not gonna happen, sorry"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Intellectual monopoly is going to have to change a lot. And the more we have abuses like this lawsuit and like Big Pharma and Disney extending patents and copyrights ad infinitum, the sooner their end will come.
It sounds to me like you're in disagreement with Ayn Rand. IIRC, Howard Roark, in her eyes, was right to commit his act of terrorism.
I absolutely disagree with Rand about intellectual monopoly. Gasp! How shocking!
I was asking to get some sense of your whys and wherefores. You don't have to be nasty or sarcastic.
Why DO you disagree with her? Isn't intellectual property the largest part of the foundation of Objectivism? Don't you think she'd eviscerate your argument, assuming she were still around?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I'm saying there won't be any such thing as "unauthorized distribution."
New regulatory measures (but definitely not what we have now) might keep data from ending up that way, so I'm not exactly confident that's where this will go.
Time will tell, I guess.
Edit: I meant to quote Samp's follow-up comment
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
