44 ms·

Hollywood and the MPAA isn't about making movies. Rather, it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. This in turn

by cstross 15y ago

Hollywood and the MPAA isn't about making movies. Rather, it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. This in turn means controlling what goes into the pipeline, and how the output from the pipeline is delivered to the consumers, and how the MPPE is marketed -- for example, the whole star system, Oscars night hype, and so on. What is needed is a better distribution channel, and that's why they keep trying to kill anything that looks like it might become one. The solution is thus going to start with (a) invent something, and (b) lawyer up, a long way prior to public launch.

sounds 15y ago
By implication then is the next big distribution channel already technically feasible? I think history makes it pretty clear someone will jump on it. It sounds like that someone will not be in the US or US-similar copyright regimes. So what kind of business can capitalize on the new distribution model -- without running afoul of the DMCA etc.? It would probably be helpful to megaupload's successor (that assumes megaupload was the next distribution channel) to have an ecosystem ready and crying out for it. It would keep the distribution channel stuffed with _legitimate_ content, thus increasing its odds of survival when it inevitably runs into US Federales.
- billswift 15y ago
  The "next big distribution channel" already exists. Why do you think the MPAA and RIAA keep trying to choke off the internet. Fortunately, they got a late start, so there is a chance to keep ahead of their lawyers.
mc32 15y ago
I think that's not an accurate characterization of the Hollywood entertainment industry. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't agree that they're not about movies. They are about movies and TV-shows. If if were not of the existence of those, then there would be no need, in their eyes, for distribution control. What would they be controlling, an idea factory? If they were only channel and no content, they'd have nothing of value to safeguard. Their reason to exist would cease to be. If Hollywood were _only_ distribution channel, they would have long been disrupted and rendered irrelevant. Their distribution _is_ actively being disrupted by the likes of Apple, Amazon and Netflix --but not the product, so much. They are slowly accepting that they have to acknowledge this new distribution type. On the other hand, Netflix is beginning to create original content --that's not going through the old Hollywood channels, so that's a start to the content production disruption. We'll have to see how that unfurls. In addition, I don't agree with the "mass-produced" qualifier. Each production is not mass produced or stamped out. Each movie (of which there may be ~500/year, and TV episode are unique productions. The qualifier mass-produced brings me visions of millions of identical, easily reproduced productions -I think the attrition rate of new shows and movie flops attest to the difficulty in producing viable content. If you meant they were destined for mass-consumption, then yes. But that's altogether different.
wvenable 15y ago
Distribution isn't the only issue. The biggest issue is funding. I'd love to be able to fund, directly, my TV and movie entertainment. Right now I feel like I'm at the mercy of anyone with a Nielsen box or the time/money to go the movies every weekend. Perhaps what there needs to be is kickstarter-like project to initiate some project and a corresponding store to keep it going. Probably TV shows would be the easiest to produce this way. Imagine something like The IT Crowd paid for directly by viewer. Or one-off shows like Louis CK's recent comedy experiment. You could get established entertainers and new talent all in the same place if you did it well.
aamar 15y ago
...it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. I don't think "mass produced" is right, since that term tends to refer to literal assembly lines and to exclude things produced merely in volume via artisan processes. Your broader point is a bit confusing because it seems like you're saying studios don't make movies, they only do X. Actually, I think you're saying that making movies is not the defensible core of Hollywood's power. I basically agree, since there are many producers of quality "content" outside of Hollywood or who could leave Hollywood in an instant. Separately, I don't think they have locked down distribution (in the narrow sense) channels very tightly; there are many non-Hollywood distributors, and it's not that difficult to self-distribute online or in theaters. Sales and marketing--reaching consumers--is difficult. Hollywood may have legitimate skill here and the studios benefit from strong network effects, quantity discounts, etc. Also, Hollywood seems to have decent VCs, as strange as it is to say that. They're able to invest large amounts of money in risky projects and come out ahead more often than not, despite the small average return. This might be a big part of their defensible core. So aside from learning how to market, any solution that seeks to displace the Hollywood system needs to do one or more of the following: find something which will eliminate the public's appetite for shared/"public" art experiences, reduce the capital requirements for mass media, or cultivate a set of sophisticated-enough investors to put $100M down on projects at the prototype stage.
- jberryman 15y ago
  > find something which will eliminate the public's appetite for shared/"public" art experiences You kind of just blew my mind with that. I'd never thought of hollywood movies that way, but there's something really fundamental about that.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Distribution is a solved problem. It's open. Even theatrical is more open than it was 5 years ago. NATO wants competitors to Hollywood. In fact, NATO members are beginning to openly compete with Hollywood (see Open Road Films, a joint venture between AMC and Regal). Production is a solved problem. The tools have been democratized. Even financing is open these days. There's a huge range of film financing sources, and as sites like Kickstarter grow, crowdfunding will become more and more viable. What is locked up is marketing. Hollywood is just better at it than their competitors. It's what the studios do that no one else seems to be able to do. To some extent this is an issue of discovery. You can make a film, you can get it in front of people, but how do you get them to know it exists? To me, this is the most productive area to focus on.
- ender7 15y ago
  This is true, but you have to understand that there is a phenomenal amount of talent locked up in Hollywood. I'm not necessarily talking about directors or actors, but camera men, DPs, best boys, set dressers...the list goes on and on. These people have skills that require many, many years of on-site training. (Don't forget about producers, line producers, production managers, site scouts, and all of the logistics people who find a way to make a huge movie happen) Making a small, Blair Witch Project/Little Miss Sunshine/indie whatever doesn't require an army of people with these skills. You can get away with some rough edges and end up looking good. But making the next Avatar? That's not a problem that will be solved solely with technology. You have to find some way to extract these guys from an industry that already pays them pretty well.
  - zerostar07 15y ago
    Question: Mega-productions like avatar rely mostly on special effects than storytelling. Are people still impressed by special effects and stunts? Aren't video games becoming more impressive to look at than movies? As a result, are these technical skills becoming less important?
    - Drbble 15y ago

by cstross 15y ago

sounds 15y ago

By implication then is the next big distribution channel already technically feasible? I think history makes it pretty clear someone will jump on it. It sounds like that someone will not be in the US or US-similar copyright regimes. So what kind of business can capitalize on the new distribution model -- without running afoul of the DMCA etc.? It would probably be helpful to megaupload's successor (that assumes megaupload was the next distribution channel) to have an ecosystem ready and crying out for it. It would keep the distribution channel stuffed with _legitimate_ content, thus increasing its odds of survival when it inevitably runs into US Federales.

billswift 15y ago
The "next big distribution channel" already exists. Why do you think the MPAA and RIAA keep trying to choke off the internet. Fortunately, they got a late start, so there is a chance to keep ahead of their lawyers.

mc32 15y ago

I think that's not an accurate characterization of the Hollywood entertainment industry. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't agree that they're not about movies. They are about movies and TV-shows. If if were not of the existence of those, then there would be no need, in their eyes, for distribution control. What would they be controlling, an idea factory? If they were only channel and no content, they'd have nothing of value to safeguard. Their reason to exist would cease to be. If Hollywood were _only_ distribution channel, they would have long been disrupted and rendered irrelevant. Their distribution _is_ actively being disrupted by the likes of Apple, Amazon and Netflix --but not the product, so much. They are slowly accepting that they have to acknowledge this new distribution type. On the other hand, Netflix is beginning to create original content --that's not going through the old Hollywood channels, so that's a start to the content production disruption. We'll have to see how that unfurls. In addition, I don't agree with the "mass-produced" qualifier. Each production is not mass produced or stamped out. Each movie (of which there may be ~500/year, and TV episode are unique productions. The qualifier mass-produced brings me visions of millions of identical, easily reproduced productions -I think the attrition rate of new shows and movie flops attest to the difficulty in producing viable content. If you meant they were destined for mass-consumption, then yes. But that's altogether different.

wvenable 15y ago

Distribution isn't the only issue. The biggest issue is funding. I'd love to be able to fund, directly, my TV and movie entertainment. Right now I feel like I'm at the mercy of anyone with a Nielsen box or the time/money to go the movies every weekend. Perhaps what there needs to be is kickstarter-like project to initiate some project and a corresponding store to keep it going. Probably TV shows would be the easiest to produce this way. Imagine something like The IT Crowd paid for directly by viewer. Or one-off shows like Louis CK's recent comedy experiment. You could get established entertainers and new talent all in the same place if you did it well.

aamar 15y ago

...it's about maintaining a distribution chokehold on mass produced popular entertainment. I don't think "mass produced" is right, since that term tends to refer to literal assembly lines and to exclude things produced merely in volume via artisan processes. Your broader point is a bit confusing because it seems like you're saying studios don't make movies, they only do X. Actually, I think you're saying that making movies is not the defensible core of Hollywood's power. I basically agree, since there are many producers of quality "content" outside of Hollywood or who could leave Hollywood in an instant. Separately, I don't think they have locked down distribution (in the narrow sense) channels very tightly; there are many non-Hollywood distributors, and it's not that difficult to self-distribute online or in theaters. Sales and marketing--reaching consumers--is difficult. Hollywood may have legitimate skill here and the studios benefit from strong network effects, quantity discounts, etc. Also, Hollywood seems to have decent VCs, as strange as it is to say that. They're able to invest large amounts of money in risky projects and come out ahead more often than not, despite the small average return. This might be a big part of their defensible core. So aside from learning how to market, any solution that seeks to displace the Hollywood system needs to do one or more of the following: find something which will eliminate the public's appetite for shared/"public" art experiences, reduce the capital requirements for mass media, or cultivate a set of sophisticated-enough investors to put $100M down on projects at the prototype stage.

jberryman 15y ago
> find something which will eliminate the public's appetite for shared/"public" art experiences You kind of just blew my mind with that. I'd never thought of hollywood movies that way, but there's something really fundamental about that.

waterlesscloud 15y ago

Distribution is a solved problem. It's open. Even theatrical is more open than it was 5 years ago. NATO wants competitors to Hollywood. In fact, NATO members are beginning to openly compete with Hollywood (see Open Road Films, a joint venture between AMC and Regal). Production is a solved problem. The tools have been democratized. Even financing is open these days. There's a huge range of film financing sources, and as sites like Kickstarter grow, crowdfunding will become more and more viable. What is locked up is marketing. Hollywood is just better at it than their competitors. It's what the studios do that no one else seems to be able to do. To some extent this is an issue of discovery. You can make a film, you can get it in front of people, but how do you get them to know it exists? To me, this is the most productive area to focus on.

ender7 15y ago
This is true, but you have to understand that there is a phenomenal amount of talent locked up in Hollywood. I'm not necessarily talking about directors or actors, but camera men, DPs, best boys, set dressers...the list goes on and on. These people have skills that require many, many years of on-site training. (Don't forget about producers, line producers, production managers, site scouts, and all of the logistics people who find a way to make a huge movie happen) Making a small, Blair Witch Project/Little Miss Sunshine/indie whatever doesn't require an army of people with these skills. You can get away with some rough edges and end up looking good. But making the next Avatar? That's not a problem that will be solved solely with technology. You have to find some way to extract these guys from an industry that already pays them pretty well.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  Question: Mega-productions like avatar rely mostly on special effects than storytelling. Are people still impressed by special effects and stunts? Aren't video games becoming more impressive to look at than movies? As a result, are these technical skills becoming less important?
  - Drbble 15y ago