3 ms·

The job of a distributer is by definition obsolete in the face of the internet. Most intelligent people I've met agree that fighting the ability to copy content

The job of a distributer is by definition obsolete in the face of the internet. Most intelligent people I've met agree that fighting the ability to copy content has no future. Distributors may not be dead yet, but they are in the ER hooked up to monitors, with lawyers running around trying to defibrillate them with lawsuits. For the most part they can't change either, because they are often under contract to provide content to certain channels and certain times. They can't just start offering a pay or advertising based torrent service. If they ever had that chance I think the window has closed. In terms of producing movies, music or other kinds of content, the only real value that remains in the studio model is financing. That is, someone pays to make your movie based on how excited you can make them in 10 minutes. With distribution being replaced, there may yet be a business model in production financing. Maybe "get enough people on facebook to like your script, and we'll give you 60 million dollars to make it...." or "hey everyone vote up our spec album" Well I can dream can't I?

unalone 17y ago
In terms of producing movies, music or other kinds of content, the only real value that remains in the studio model is financing. That is, someone pays to make your movie based on how excited you can make them in 10 minutes. With distribution being replaced, there may yet be a business model in production financing. Maybe "get enough people on facebook to like your script, and we'll give you 60 million dollars to make it...." or "hey everyone vote up our spec album" That sounds more like a nightmare to me. I've got a lot of friends who lack the ability to distribute themselves well. Actually, it's almost all my friends. Most musicians I know aren't good at publicity. In a scenario without effective distribution, the viral scene favors not the best work, but the most easily digestible work. That means a trend away towards complexity, which is not necessarily a trend I'd want to see. Trent Reznor seems to be the flagship of this attitude of "a musician ought to do everything himself and publicize himself to death." That's great for him to say, but what about the people who can't do that as well as he can? I mean, NiN isn't particularly a brilliant band; it's good, but there's a lot better out there. Reznor is iconic not because he's the best but because he's the most savvy. Again: not certain that's a good thing. Not every talented person is good at promotion; we'd lose a lot of meaning for the sake of a lot of fluff. Distributors aren't a perfect solution, but they at least act as a sort of safegate. They do the work other people can't. If I saw the opening 10 minutes of 2001 I wouldn't be excited. Ditto Blue Velvet and every Lynch film, ditto most Coen brothers films, ditto pretty much every movie I love that isn't made by Edgar Wright. You're asking people to judge a book by its cover, and that's not exactly fair. The crowd sucks. The crowd is stupid. Look at Shirky's recent article about #amazonfail. Individuals become stupid when they become part of a mass. That's why the best producers and distributors tend to work alone or in small groups: because crowdsourcing doesn't work when it comes to finding good things. I don't trust even my handpicked Facebook friends to like good things, so I don't know why I'd trust the rest of the users on Facebook any more.
- kragen 17y ago
  In a scenario without effective distribution, the viral scene favors not the best work, but the most easily digestible work. Maybe. Do you suppose that's why there's so much more good music available now than there was 20 years ago, before we built the internet, as the most effective distribution mechanism in history? The thing that I fear favors the most easily digestible work is the hair-trigger social voting sites like Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, etc. But I think those depend on effective distribution, rather than being undercut by it. Not every talented person is good at promotion; Yeah, and that's a big part of why so many of them get ripped off by music-industry slime who are good at promotion. I for one am happy to be in an environment where fans can do the promotion these days.
joeyo 17y ago
What's the incentive for producing content that you can't control the distribution of (ie profit from)? edit: I mean from the perspectives of a producer, obviously the incentives of the artist are many.

unalone 17y ago

In terms of producing movies, music or other kinds of content, the only real value that remains in the studio model is financing. That is, someone pays to make your movie based on how excited you can make them in 10 minutes. With distribution being replaced, there may yet be a business model in production financing. Maybe "get enough people on facebook to like your script, and we'll give you 60 million dollars to make it...." or "hey everyone vote up our spec album" That sounds more like a nightmare to me. I've got a lot of friends who lack the ability to distribute themselves well. Actually, it's almost all my friends. Most musicians I know aren't good at publicity. In a scenario without effective distribution, the viral scene favors not the best work, but the most easily digestible work. That means a trend away towards complexity, which is not necessarily a trend I'd want to see. Trent Reznor seems to be the flagship of this attitude of "a musician ought to do everything himself and publicize himself to death." That's great for him to say, but what about the people who can't do that as well as he can? I mean, NiN isn't particularly a brilliant band; it's good, but there's a lot better out there. Reznor is iconic not because he's the best but because he's the most savvy. Again: not certain that's a good thing. Not every talented person is good at promotion; we'd lose a lot of meaning for the sake of a lot of fluff. Distributors aren't a perfect solution, but they at least act as a sort of safegate. They do the work other people can't. If I saw the opening 10 minutes of 2001 I wouldn't be excited. Ditto Blue Velvet and every Lynch film, ditto most Coen brothers films, ditto pretty much every movie I love that isn't made by Edgar Wright. You're asking people to judge a book by its cover, and that's not exactly fair. The crowd sucks. The crowd is stupid. Look at Shirky's recent article about #amazonfail. Individuals become stupid when they become part of a mass. That's why the best producers and distributors tend to work alone or in small groups: because crowdsourcing doesn't work when it comes to finding good things. I don't trust even my handpicked Facebook friends to like good things, so I don't know why I'd trust the rest of the users on Facebook any more.

kragen 17y ago
In a scenario without effective distribution, the viral scene favors not the best work, but the most easily digestible work. Maybe. Do you suppose that's why there's so much more good music available now than there was 20 years ago, before we built the internet, as the most effective distribution mechanism in history? The thing that I fear favors the most easily digestible work is the hair-trigger social voting sites like Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, etc. But I think those depend on effective distribution, rather than being undercut by it. Not every talented person is good at promotion; Yeah, and that's a big part of why so many of them get ripped off by music-industry slime who are good at promotion. I for one am happy to be in an environment where fans can do the promotion these days.

joeyo 17y ago

What's the incentive for producing content that you can't control the distribution of (ie profit from)? edit: I mean from the perspectives of a producer, obviously the incentives of the artist are many.