3 ms·

That state of affairs was created by compulsory licensing. I'm not sure that really makes sense for TV/movies, since it would also mean a fixed royalty price fo

That state of affairs was created by compulsory licensing. I'm not sure that really makes sense for TV/movies, since it would also mean a fixed royalty price for everything. But it sure would be nice.

jszymborski 3y ago
> I'm not sure that really makes sense for TV/movies, since it would also mean a fixed royalty price for everything. Any reason why you think it would be a problem to have a fixed price? I think the studios would have to swallow it if it was compulsory, no?
- kelnos 3y ago
  Because there's much more variation in what it costs to make a TV episode or movie than what it costs to make an album of music. If there was one fixed royalty for every movie, it would presumably be too low to recoup the cost of blockbusters, so we just wouldn't get those anymore (I know some people wouldn't care, but most people would). And low-budget stuff would get "too much" (maybe less of a problem ;) ). Then again, most successful blockbusters make back their budget and then some from theater ticket sales. But there's a lot of stuff out there that goes direct to streaming, or that doesn't find a following in the theater. Not to mention TV shows never end up in theaters, so they rely a lot more on streaming revenue to pay the bills, since selling television advertising is no longer as lucrative as it once was. I do agree that compulsory licensing could work, but they'd have to come up with royalty tiers, or some variable pricing that depends on some objective measure that is difficult to game, if such a thing exists.
  - jszymborski 3y ago
    This is interesting. I'm just coming from the perspective that when I go to the theatre, there's just one general admission price regardless of the picture I'm seeing. But I understand how TV is very different. You have "prestige" TV and you have your network sitcoms.

jszymborski 3y ago

> I'm not sure that really makes sense for TV/movies, since it would also mean a fixed royalty price for everything. Any reason why you think it would be a problem to have a fixed price? I think the studios would have to swallow it if it was compulsory, no?

kelnos 3y ago
Because there's much more variation in what it costs to make a TV episode or movie than what it costs to make an album of music. If there was one fixed royalty for every movie, it would presumably be too low to recoup the cost of blockbusters, so we just wouldn't get those anymore (I know some people wouldn't care, but most people would). And low-budget stuff would get "too much" (maybe less of a problem ;) ). Then again, most successful blockbusters make back their budget and then some from theater ticket sales. But there's a lot of stuff out there that goes direct to streaming, or that doesn't find a following in the theater. Not to mention TV shows never end up in theaters, so they rely a lot more on streaming revenue to pay the bills, since selling television advertising is no longer as lucrative as it once was. I do agree that compulsory licensing could work, but they'd have to come up with royalty tiers, or some variable pricing that depends on some objective measure that is difficult to game, if such a thing exists.
- jszymborski 3y ago
  This is interesting. I'm just coming from the perspective that when I go to the theatre, there's just one general admission price regardless of the picture I'm seeing. But I understand how TV is very different. You have "prestige" TV and you have your network sitcoms.