3 ms·

> "When someone comes to you and says I need a few hundred million dollars to make a movie about 10 foot tall blue people on another planet, that's not an easy

by T-R 15y ago

> "When someone comes to you and says I need a few hundred million dollars to make a movie about 10 foot tall blue people on another planet, that's not an easy decision to make. But if you do make that decision and it does turn out to be Avatar, then you'd like to be compensated." This seems to imply that 20th Century Fox feels entitled to making the kind of profits that would support such exorbitant investments. I liked Avatar as much as the next guy, but the concept of making that much money off of something like music or film is a relatively recent phenomenon, dependent upon the combination of wide distribution with artificial scarcity. Even if Avatar couldn't be made without the kinds of conditions that allow for those kinds of profits, I'm pretty sure I'd trade it for all of the direct and indirect casualties of the recording and film industries; but really, I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that high quality work can't be motivated by more reasonable profits and other less tangible benefits.

junklight 15y ago
the decision to invest the $100M is a business decision. Wanting the laws changed to favour your business decision is understandable I guess but if you extend that line of thinking - why aren't they lobbying for, oh I don't know, people have to go to the cinema once a month? or that there should be a cinema tax. Everyone has to pay $10 a month to the film industry. see how far you get with any investor if your plan involves changing the law to create more favourable conditions for your profit. these business models will all eventually die and be replaced by younger people who grew up in this copy and copy alike world and will find new ways of making money but there might be a hell of a lot of collateral damage to the law as they go down.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
- sesqu 15y ago
  Everyone has to pay $10 a month to the film industry. We already have the IP tax. In my country, it's essentially a value added tax on all digital mass media, regardless of use. The money from that is lumped in with the money from concerts and from playing radio in public, and goes to an entertainment organization that then distributes it to its members and partners as it sees fit.

by T-R 15y ago

junklight 15y ago

the decision to invest the $100M is a business decision. Wanting the laws changed to favour your business decision is understandable I guess but if you extend that line of thinking - why aren't they lobbying for, oh I don't know, people have to go to the cinema once a month? or that there should be a cinema tax. Everyone has to pay $10 a month to the film industry. see how far you get with any investor if your plan involves changing the law to create more favourable conditions for your profit. these business models will all eventually die and be replaced by younger people who grew up in this copy and copy alike world and will find new ways of making money but there might be a hell of a lot of collateral damage to the law as they go down.

chopsueyar 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
sesqu 15y ago
Everyone has to pay $10 a month to the film industry. We already have the IP tax. In my country, it's essentially a value added tax on all digital mass media, regardless of use. The money from that is lumped in with the money from concerts and from playing radio in public, and goes to an entertainment organization that then distributes it to its members and partners as it sees fit.