4 ms·

.responding to jedberg 1) "Look at Portugal" Ahh, yes, the Portugal example. I'm sorry but selling drugs is illegal in Portugal. Do you think that you can i

.responding to jedberg 1) "Look at Portugal" Ahh, yes, the Portugal example. I'm sorry but selling drugs is illegal in Portugal. Do you think that you can import a ton of heroin willy nilly and 'it's call cool'? The 'example of Portugal' continues to prove my point! Portugal has taken some nice steps towards how to handle addicts etc, but fundamentally - Portugal continues it's 'war on drugs' with a slightly different tool set. By the way: weed is still illegal in Portugal. 2) Music. The music industry as we know it almost vanished, and it's taken on a completely different form. The same has not happened in video content production. Madonna (and others) abandoned trying to make money from sales, and they moved to 'touring' instead - because of privacy. Do you see Brad Pitt at your local theatre 'because he can't make money in film or TV'? No. So 'DRM' is working in video, the industry is alive - the obvious reasons have to do with the nature of how we consume music, vs. how we consume video. And it's not a happy story for content-creators in music. 'Making a living' in music is really hard, and they've been pushed into all sorts of commercial activities. Thankfully - music production is not hugely expensive. A 'great album' can theoretically be made very cheaply - so we'll continue to get great music. 'Avengers' will cost $300M to make there is no way around it. The level of cognitive dissonance on this issue is stupefying. Again - I understand that there's elements of issues of freedom, and there are also many studio execs who are deluded, some are greedy - but there are real factors at play here that cannot be denied.

apatters 7y ago
I upvoted your comments because even though I don't agree with everything you're saying, I think the discussion is valuable, especially the comparison of the music and movie industries. You noted that music artists have a tough time making money in the modern, digital model. I would point out that this was true with the old model as well. Most artists I know who have experienced both models will say that they both suck because exposure is controlled by large distributors who are able to control where the lion's share of the money goes, but at least in the modern model they can connect with their fans directly over the Internet and there are some opportunities in that. To compare this to the movie industry. Because music files are smaller and bandwidth used to be more limited, Hollywood watched music go digital first, it watched the old music business models and companies implode, and it took notes. Hollywood was consequently able to do a much better job of preserving their business model through DRM and legal action. Now we have $300M Avengers movies marketed worldwide. I liked Avengers. It was not bad. It also wasn't some amazing pinnacle of human creativity that needs to be preserved. I don't see anything about this model that is inevitable, best, or essential to keep around. In fact most people will agree that Hollywood movies, designed around the "Four Quadrants" audience theory, are rather bland and mindless, because the goal of the studios is to go as huge as possible and get as many people in the theater as possible. I can _absolutely_ imagine other models, quite possibly yielding better entertainment, smaller productions that are more tailored to specific audiences, and are more enjoyable than the typical Hollywood blockbuster, and I would have zero issues with watching Hollywood implode in the process, just like the old music industry did. tl;dr Hollywood only survived because they had the benefit of hindsight, their product isn't that special and just like Thanos they're not as inevitable as they want you to believe.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Good points - but Hollywood did not survive because of 'hindsight'. They are dysfunctional, and their playbook was simply 'DRM everything' and 'cross their fingers'. They really didn't do anything fundamental. They just pushed hard on the value chain for DRM. They are not sophisticated or coordinated to do anything really. They survived because the game is simply different - how and when we consume content. The investment scale etc.. It doesn't matter that 'the Avengers' isn't exactly historical, people want it, and stuff like that - and of course, there are great films made at that scale. If you can _absolutely_ better models, then you should share. Remind yourself that industries and consumer behaviours are hard to break, and that if people can 'easily' view 'free stuff' they will even if it's copyrighted. Ultimately, someone has to pay, or there have to be ads. There are just only so many ways you can configure that equation. Be it Hollywood, Netflix, Network TV, Public Broadcasting - most of the models are tried. Making even a $20M investment in a film is very risk - even with DRM and copyright - most films fail. It's a treacherous business. I personally do not think anything will change: video will be DRM'd, big pirates will be aggressively pursued, small time stuff will be fairly common, but most people will end up paying for video one way or another. Music is going to be very cheap from here on in.
repolfx 7y ago
Thankyou for making these arguments. Anti-DRM groupthink in geek communities has always been one of the more grating aspects of the software world. Video game producers have detailed data on how DRM protects their sales - they can literally see their sales curve tank the moment a crack comes out, and they can see the sales return to normal when the cracks are patched. Movie studios have similar data. They also know that protections will be broken and then repaired, but it's a simple financial calculation - is the impact on sales greater than the cost of developing and repairing the DRM? Yes? Then they do it. And who can blame them, they're just being rational economic actors.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  It becomes apparent the moment one is on the 'other side of the equation'. You make an app, stuff gets stolen, you feel very legitimately aggrieved, and then the logic starts to add up more clearly. I think the true 'market clearing price' for a lot of content is much less than what Hollywood thinks. Especially films in the theatre, but by enlarge, everyone making such content is taking a big risk. I think many directors and producers should earn more than baseball players who earn ridiculous amounts of money.

apatters 7y ago

I upvoted your comments because even though I don't agree with everything you're saying, I think the discussion is valuable, especially the comparison of the music and movie industries. You noted that music artists have a tough time making money in the modern, digital model. I would point out that this was true with the old model as well. Most artists I know who have experienced both models will say that they both suck because exposure is controlled by large distributors who are able to control where the lion's share of the money goes, but at least in the modern model they can connect with their fans directly over the Internet and there are some opportunities in that. To compare this to the movie industry. Because music files are smaller and bandwidth used to be more limited, Hollywood watched music go digital first, it watched the old music business models and companies implode, and it took notes. Hollywood was consequently able to do a much better job of preserving their business model through DRM and legal action. Now we have $300M Avengers movies marketed worldwide. I liked Avengers. It was not bad. It also wasn't some amazing pinnacle of human creativity that needs to be preserved. I don't see anything about this model that is inevitable, best, or essential to keep around. In fact most people will agree that Hollywood movies, designed around the "Four Quadrants" audience theory, are rather bland and mindless, because the goal of the studios is to go as huge as possible and get as many people in the theater as possible. I can _absolutely_ imagine other models, quite possibly yielding better entertainment, smaller productions that are more tailored to specific audiences, and are more enjoyable than the typical Hollywood blockbuster, and I would have zero issues with watching Hollywood implode in the process, just like the old music industry did. tl;dr Hollywood only survived because they had the benefit of hindsight, their product isn't that special and just like Thanos they're not as inevitable as they want you to believe.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
Good points - but Hollywood did not survive because of 'hindsight'. They are dysfunctional, and their playbook was simply 'DRM everything' and 'cross their fingers'. They really didn't do anything fundamental. They just pushed hard on the value chain for DRM. They are not sophisticated or coordinated to do anything really. They survived because the game is simply different - how and when we consume content. The investment scale etc.. It doesn't matter that 'the Avengers' isn't exactly historical, people want it, and stuff like that - and of course, there are great films made at that scale. If you can _absolutely_ better models, then you should share. Remind yourself that industries and consumer behaviours are hard to break, and that if people can 'easily' view 'free stuff' they will even if it's copyrighted. Ultimately, someone has to pay, or there have to be ads. There are just only so many ways you can configure that equation. Be it Hollywood, Netflix, Network TV, Public Broadcasting - most of the models are tried. Making even a $20M investment in a film is very risk - even with DRM and copyright - most films fail. It's a treacherous business. I personally do not think anything will change: video will be DRM'd, big pirates will be aggressively pursued, small time stuff will be fairly common, but most people will end up paying for video one way or another. Music is going to be very cheap from here on in.

repolfx 7y ago

Thankyou for making these arguments. Anti-DRM groupthink in geek communities has always been one of the more grating aspects of the software world. Video game producers have detailed data on how DRM protects their sales - they can literally see their sales curve tank the moment a crack comes out, and they can see the sales return to normal when the cracks are patched. Movie studios have similar data. They also know that protections will be broken and then repaired, but it's a simple financial calculation - is the impact on sales greater than the cost of developing and repairing the DRM? Yes? Then they do it. And who can blame them, they're just being rational economic actors.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
It becomes apparent the moment one is on the 'other side of the equation'. You make an app, stuff gets stolen, you feel very legitimately aggrieved, and then the logic starts to add up more clearly. I think the true 'market clearing price' for a lot of content is much less than what Hollywood thinks. Especially films in the theatre, but by enlarge, everyone making such content is taking a big risk. I think many directors and producers should earn more than baseball players who earn ridiculous amounts of money.