11 ms·

You've fallen into the classic trap: No one is obliged to give you money. Finding a business model that works is your problem, not your customers. Forced lock

You've fallen into the classic trap: No one is obliged to give you money. Finding a business model that works is your problem, not your customers. Forced lock-in is a model, but it's a violent one that makes people want to leave, and it's entirely predicated on there never being an escape hatch for your trapped customers. There is now an escape hatch for content customers. They're no longer beholden to the choice of cinema or TV for their content, and haven't been for years. Whining about how much more money you made in the old days when people couldn't escape the cage really doesn't enamor you to people. It's on hollywood to find a new business model that works in a post-cage world. If they can't, they'll go bankrupt and vanish, and I won't care. There's a lot, and I mean a lot, of good content out there that's either low investment (think Primer) or can pay for itself in box office and/or merchandising alone (marvel, star wars, lord of the rings). If your content creation is predicated on selling DVD's or subscriptions, and your DVD/subscription mechanism is so bad people are willingly buying VPN's to other countries to avoid using it (netflix in aus), that's not your customers problem in any fashion, it's yours.

dmarg 11y ago
>>No one is obliged to give you money. Finding a business model that works is your problem, not your customers.<< This struck a chord with me and is exactly the reason why Hollywood and the Music Industry are flailing. They are trying to continue their business model that worked for so long into this new day and age. Adapt or die essentially.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  You mean you don't like watching all those unskippable previews and commercials on your blu-ray, or "downloading" the included digital drm file off your disney DVD so you can take your copy of cinderella with you anywhere, anytime.* Or what about renting that great movie and having a 24 hour window to watch it. *Maximum of 2 downloads. Approved devices only, Void where prohibited
- untog 11y ago
  But what is that new model, exactly? If "paying money in return for receiving goods" doesn't work, how will they make these multi-million dollar cultural phenomenons? I agree that the current system is broken, but saying you'll pirate until the studios work out it feels like an irresponsible point of view, to me.
  - DanielBMarkham 11y ago
    Look at it this way: Throughout history, there have been things that were hard to do: create a picture that looked like a landscape, create a complex piece of music from nothing, give somebody a ride 20 miles to the next town, correspond with somebody halfway around the world. During this time, it was very common for people to come and pay just for the experience of the event, which was , in some cases, truly magical. Open-air powered carriages? Who wouldn't pay a lot of money to see and ride in one for a few minutes? A room with a few painted landscapes from far-off shores? It's a cultural event. People and companies paid lots of money to increase the spectacle and social attractiveness of these experiences. Not only could you hear a collection of a dozen stringed instruments play, you could do so in the presence of a duke! This is exactly where Hollywood is today. They're doing their damnedest to prevent the inevitable slide into commoditization that has occurred with every other art form and experience. The market eliminates inefficiencies. Today I can see pictures of just about anywhere in the world for nothing. I can listen to hundreds of instruments play -- any one of tens of thousands of songs -- for free. I can travel in luxury in a modern vehicle owned by my neighbor, while doing all of these other things, to the nearest town for pennies. So the question isn't "how do you make these multi-million dollar cultural phenomenons". That's like asking "Who will be the next Beethoven?" Beethoven's dead, and the symphony, while it lives on as a cultural phenomenon, is no longer the primary means of consuming music. So there's your answer: movies will no longer be the primary means of consuming long-form audio-visual entertainment. They will continue to exist for a long period of time just as the symphony does, and the experience of being with the actors and director for a first showing in a glitzy theater will probably never go away, but the bits and bytes of the thing will have virtually no value at all. Things change. That's just life. Always been like this.
  - path411 11y ago
martypitt 11y ago
No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. At that point, they are. Anything else assumes that because content exists, people have the right to consume it -- for free if they can work out how. Let's be clear: I fully agree that Hollywood needs to catch up, and make content accessible in the way that Popcorn time has. But I don't have the right to consume content illegally, just because I find their business model inconvenient.
- donutz 11y ago
  > No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. At that point, they are. Umm, no. I don't owe buskers one penny, even if I enjoy their street performance.
  - martypitt 11y ago
    Sorry, I should've been clear: > No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. Then, it's my call, whatever business model I pick. Buskers are giving their content away for free. You don't have the right to attend their concert, just because you don't like the website they're selling their tickets on.
    - jmcmichael 11y ago
      > ...whatever business model I pick. Would it be a good thing for society to allow you to pick a business model where you blare your music from loud speakers and then pay large burley men 50 cents to collect 1 dollar from anyone within earshot, on the premise that they heard your music so thus owe you?
      - bdcravens 11y ago
        I've never accidentally watched Game of Thrones, or unintentionally been within earshot of it - I had to explicitly choose to include that programming.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
> No one is obliged to give you money. Yes they are, if you create something that they derive value from. Whether it is to be given away for free or paid for is your prerogative as the value creator, not theirs.
- icebraining 11y ago
  So, if I play music in front of your home, and you enjoy it, can I demand you pay me money? It's not as clear-cut as you're making it to be.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    You gave it away for free by playing it without an agreed upon contract. Had there been a contract, then yes, you could've taken them to court to enforce their side of it.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      When I download a song from the bittorrent network, I'm under no contract with the label to pay for it. On the other hand, if I coin a really good new word, everyone uses it without paying me, despite the value I have provided.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        You never were under contract. Someone who uploaded it probably was. Thus with them lies the breach of contract and penalties owed.
        icebraining 11y ago
        So money isn't owed because they created value, but because they had a contract, right?
        Schwolop 11y ago
        This sounds a lot like you're suggesting downloading copyrighted works is acceptable, and that only the uploaders have done anything wrong. Regardless how you and I feel about that sentiment, I assure you Hollywood feels and sues differently...
trimble-alum 11y ago
Exactly. Free is on the competitive battlefield with paid, just as nonmonitized (open source, volunteer and nonprofits) can be competitive to monetized endeavors. It's a continuum along the axis of price, which does not necessarily have to be a positive number. Content distributors are at liberty to uniquely watermark all content and hunt down every last pirate with massive penalties AND/OR threaten to stop producing content, if they so choose. Content viewers can also make choices, one of which could be to organize collective negotiation.
IgorPartola 11y ago
I read GP's comment as "Popcorn Time is popular because it's free. They have no business model." I tend to agree with that. If I started giving away $5 bills for only a $1 each, my "business" would be popular too. That doesn't mean it's a good business to be in, or that it would last any length of time. I am in no way in favor of our current system, and I agree Hollywood needs to find a new model or die, but Popcorn Time is not that business model, which is what I believe GP is saying.
- hobarrera 11y ago
  However, your analogy is flawed. PT does not give away anything. If you give out $5 bills, you'll run out. PT has no limited resources in that aspect.
chasing 11y ago
You've fallen into the classic trap: No one is obliged to give you free content in the form of movies, music, books, video games, television shows, etc. Just because you can pirate or steal something doesn't mean it's morally or legally justifiable.
- locokoko 11y ago
  well, in this context no one is really "giving", it is there anyway and yours to decide if you just take it or pay for it. In a society where products are intentionally and willingly overproduced to maximize profit (while at the same time trying to dump wages and social securities), the moral boundaries on piracy and/or stealing are getting a bit hazy, at least in my opinion. Of course, the legal situation is pretty clear in most cases.
  - chasing 11y ago
    So pirating a movie is like stealing a car?
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  I'm not after free content, I'm after accessible content. This discussion is basically about how content industries, with all their clout, are somehow unable to match the usability of some dudes with a bit of spare time.
  - chasing 11y ago
    You just announced how you don't feel obligated to pay people money for content. You're after free content. Yeah, it's probably easier to make content accessible when you're willing to completely break the law and ignore the rights of the people who have invested in creating the content in the first place.
    - Sir_Substance 11y ago
      >You just announced how you don't feel obligated to pay people money for content. This is what common core is doing to our children, people.
baby 11y ago
Every time I see comments like this I wonder if most people here are advocates of "unfair competition". You want everything now and it has to be cheaper and you sometimes have to stop thinking only about the consumer but also the producers. This not only goes for cinema but also for food, services, etc...

dmarg 11y ago

>>No one is obliged to give you money. Finding a business model that works is your problem, not your customers.<< This struck a chord with me and is exactly the reason why Hollywood and the Music Industry are flailing. They are trying to continue their business model that worked for so long into this new day and age. Adapt or die essentially.

michaelbuddy 11y ago
You mean you don't like watching all those unskippable previews and commercials on your blu-ray, or "downloading" the included digital drm file off your disney DVD so you can take your copy of cinderella with you anywhere, anytime.* Or what about renting that great movie and having a 24 hour window to watch it. *Maximum of 2 downloads. Approved devices only, Void where prohibited
untog 11y ago
But what is that new model, exactly? If "paying money in return for receiving goods" doesn't work, how will they make these multi-million dollar cultural phenomenons? I agree that the current system is broken, but saying you'll pirate until the studios work out it feels like an irresponsible point of view, to me.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Look at it this way: Throughout history, there have been things that were hard to do: create a picture that looked like a landscape, create a complex piece of music from nothing, give somebody a ride 20 miles to the next town, correspond with somebody halfway around the world. During this time, it was very common for people to come and pay just for the experience of the event, which was , in some cases, truly magical. Open-air powered carriages? Who wouldn't pay a lot of money to see and ride in one for a few minutes? A room with a few painted landscapes from far-off shores? It's a cultural event. People and companies paid lots of money to increase the spectacle and social attractiveness of these experiences. Not only could you hear a collection of a dozen stringed instruments play, you could do so in the presence of a duke! This is exactly where Hollywood is today. They're doing their damnedest to prevent the inevitable slide into commoditization that has occurred with every other art form and experience. The market eliminates inefficiencies. Today I can see pictures of just about anywhere in the world for nothing. I can listen to hundreds of instruments play -- any one of tens of thousands of songs -- for free. I can travel in luxury in a modern vehicle owned by my neighbor, while doing all of these other things, to the nearest town for pennies. So the question isn't "how do you make these multi-million dollar cultural phenomenons". That's like asking "Who will be the next Beethoven?" Beethoven's dead, and the symphony, while it lives on as a cultural phenomenon, is no longer the primary means of consuming music. So there's your answer: movies will no longer be the primary means of consuming long-form audio-visual entertainment. They will continue to exist for a long period of time just as the symphony does, and the experience of being with the actors and director for a first showing in a glitzy theater will probably never go away, but the bits and bytes of the thing will have virtually no value at all. Things change. That's just life. Always been like this.
- path411 11y ago

martypitt 11y ago

No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. At that point, they are. Anything else assumes that because content exists, people have the right to consume it -- for free if they can work out how. Let's be clear: I fully agree that Hollywood needs to catch up, and make content accessible in the way that Popcorn time has. But I don't have the right to consume content illegally, just because I find their business model inconvenient.

donutz 11y ago
> No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. At that point, they are. Umm, no. I don't owe buskers one penny, even if I enjoy their street performance.
- martypitt 11y ago
  Sorry, I should've been clear: > No one is obliged to give me money -- unless they consume the content I created. Then, it's my call, whatever business model I pick. Buskers are giving their content away for free. You don't have the right to attend their concert, just because you don't like the website they're selling their tickets on.
  - jmcmichael 11y ago
    > ...whatever business model I pick. Would it be a good thing for society to allow you to pick a business model where you blare your music from loud speakers and then pay large burley men 50 cents to collect 1 dollar from anyone within earshot, on the premise that they heard your music so thus owe you?
    - bdcravens 11y ago
      I've never accidentally watched Game of Thrones, or unintentionally been within earshot of it - I had to explicitly choose to include that programming.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

> No one is obliged to give you money. Yes they are, if you create something that they derive value from. Whether it is to be given away for free or paid for is your prerogative as the value creator, not theirs.

icebraining 11y ago
So, if I play music in front of your home, and you enjoy it, can I demand you pay me money? It's not as clear-cut as you're making it to be.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  You gave it away for free by playing it without an agreed upon contract. Had there been a contract, then yes, you could've taken them to court to enforce their side of it.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    When I download a song from the bittorrent network, I'm under no contract with the label to pay for it. On the other hand, if I coin a really good new word, everyone uses it without paying me, despite the value I have provided.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      You never were under contract. Someone who uploaded it probably was. Thus with them lies the breach of contract and penalties owed.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        So money isn't owed because they created value, but because they had a contract, right?
      - Schwolop 11y ago
        This sounds a lot like you're suggesting downloading copyrighted works is acceptable, and that only the uploaders have done anything wrong. Regardless how you and I feel about that sentiment, I assure you Hollywood feels and sues differently...

trimble-alum 11y ago

Exactly. Free is on the competitive battlefield with paid, just as nonmonitized (open source, volunteer and nonprofits) can be competitive to monetized endeavors. It's a continuum along the axis of price, which does not necessarily have to be a positive number. Content distributors are at liberty to uniquely watermark all content and hunt down every last pirate with massive penalties AND/OR threaten to stop producing content, if they so choose. Content viewers can also make choices, one of which could be to organize collective negotiation.

IgorPartola 11y ago

I read GP's comment as "Popcorn Time is popular because it's free. They have no business model." I tend to agree with that. If I started giving away $5 bills for only a $1 each, my "business" would be popular too. That doesn't mean it's a good business to be in, or that it would last any length of time. I am in no way in favor of our current system, and I agree Hollywood needs to find a new model or die, but Popcorn Time is not that business model, which is what I believe GP is saying.

hobarrera 11y ago
However, your analogy is flawed. PT does not give away anything. If you give out $5 bills, you'll run out. PT has no limited resources in that aspect.

chasing 11y ago

You've fallen into the classic trap: No one is obliged to give you free content in the form of movies, music, books, video games, television shows, etc. Just because you can pirate or steal something doesn't mean it's morally or legally justifiable.

locokoko 11y ago
well, in this context no one is really "giving", it is there anyway and yours to decide if you just take it or pay for it. In a society where products are intentionally and willingly overproduced to maximize profit (while at the same time trying to dump wages and social securities), the moral boundaries on piracy and/or stealing are getting a bit hazy, at least in my opinion. Of course, the legal situation is pretty clear in most cases.
- chasing 11y ago
  So pirating a movie is like stealing a car?
Sir_Substance 11y ago
I'm not after free content, I'm after accessible content. This discussion is basically about how content industries, with all their clout, are somehow unable to match the usability of some dudes with a bit of spare time.
- chasing 11y ago
  You just announced how you don't feel obligated to pay people money for content. You're after free content. Yeah, it's probably easier to make content accessible when you're willing to completely break the law and ignore the rights of the people who have invested in creating the content in the first place.
  - Sir_Substance 11y ago
    >You just announced how you don't feel obligated to pay people money for content. This is what common core is doing to our children, people.

baby 11y ago

Every time I see comments like this I wonder if most people here are advocates of "unfair competition". You want everything now and it has to be cheaper and you sometimes have to stop thinking only about the consumer but also the producers. This not only goes for cinema but also for food, services, etc...