Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Y Combinator Wants To Kill Hollywood

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the bigger-they-are-the-harder-they-fall dept.

Businesses 424

An anonymous reader writes "Y Combinator, a firm that invests in startups, has put out a call to kill Hollywood. In a post on their site, the firm said attempts at legislation similar to SOPA wouldn't stop until there is no industry left to protect. They now want to incubate ideas for new types of entertainment, so we can evolve the movie and television industries. Quoting: 'There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo.'"

cancel ×

424 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774500)

Dodd and the MPAA are not going to take this sort of thing sitting down. They will sue over every word that ever appeared in any movie or TV show. They will attack any technology that is used to distribute this entertainment. They will lobby for laws forbidding this sort of thing.

So, how can we help fight them?

Re:Cue the lawsuits (1, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774574)

Let's ALL kill Hollywood. They can't arrest all of us!

Re:Cue the lawsuits (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774984)

yes they can... as a matter of fact, you're already under arrest.... hands on the car.. c'mon spread 'em

Re:Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774642)

This battle will probably fail.. but I think this is how the war is ultimately going to be won..

Not by some massive project, but with little nibbles over a long period of time. Stuff like this shows that more and more people are getting fed up. They fail and someone else tries, then someone else, etc.. eventually you will see something persistent, and it will gradually get more and more share until it is a serious competitor, and hopefully, a replacement for the existing media establishment.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774886)

Yeah, it's been baby steps of progress. Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Hulu, Microsoft, Roku, Nintendo (etc) have all shown that inexpensive, easy-to-use, reliable, on-demand content delivery to customers televisions isn't just entirely workable, but popular.

Various billing models for different kinds of media are being tried. Now Netflix, Hulu and Microsoft are getting into exclusive content production. That's a big leap forward.

The trick is, and I think the Y Combinator folks understand this, is to not lose sight of the fact that the customers are increasingly capable and they want what they want. Giving them something else and saying, "Tough, that's the way it is and you'll like it." just isn't going to fly anymore.

Nintendo is one of the gatekeepers (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775020)

Nintendo (etc) have all shown that inexpensive, easy-to-use, reliable, on-demand content delivery to customers televisions isn't just entirely workable, but popular.

But Nintendo and the other console makers still insist that a producer of works make its name on another platform before being allowed to distribute on the console.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775152)

The distribution mechanisms are all in place, and others will come along. That's not the problem.

The problem is the content production. That's what costs millions of dollars, and needs a return on investment.

The general publics expectation of production values means small, indie content production just won't compete with the hollywood projects.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774702)

Let all of us simple organisms rise from our petri dishes and pick up a BOOK, shall we?

That would destroy Hollywood and we may actually become smarter -- not that there's any other direction to go these days in America...

Before you get all riled up...I am American, I see how sadly mentally-deficient we are here...it's sad, really...

Re:Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774710)

> So, how can we help fight them?

Change the election system in the US so you dont have to "fight" them any more, but can just vote them out of politics. Take the power politicians have to push abusive, bad laws. Bring in more direct democracy, so that lawmaking becomes more independent of the few bribeable, single points of failure (politicians). MPAA/RIAA are only able to influence laws because there are only so few politicians to bribe and because, after being bribed, nobody can stop them from introducing abusive laws.

In my view, Paul Graham got it completely wrong. It is not Hollywood that has to be fought, it is the undemocratic political system that has to go. Hollywood just abuses the buggy system because it is so easy to abuse (think Windows 98). After YC "kills Hollywood", simply somebody else will come up to bribe politicians and purchase laws because it is so effective. The system allows for rich people to literally purchase laws.

The cure is not to merely stop this one case of abuse, but to debug the system to prevent any further abuses. "Debug the system" in this case means introduce switzerland style direct democracy to make people able to bypass "professional" politicians and to directly veto abusive and unjust laws.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (4, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774876)

California is a clear example of why direct democracy doesn't scale. I think the reform has to happen on lobbying level. Should politicians be able to become lobbyists?

Re:Cue the lawsuits (1, Funny)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775010)

Yeah, because the alternative would be for them to just continually raising house taxes to cover their spending. They are going ot spend either way, at least we have SOME protection against government waste. Fuck you for thinking you know better than The People. The Direct Democracry thing is doing jsut fine in CA, we are still here, still 5th largest economy in the world.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775126)

I disagree. It's a clear example of how direct democracy can work to fix broken laws. Occasionally, a referendum is heinous and gets struck down by the courts. Occasionally, a referendum is heinous and doesn't. The side effects are still statistically far lower than in crap passed by Congress, on average....

Re:Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

suprcvic (684521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774910)

Change the election system in the US so you dont have to "fight" them any more, but can just vote them out of politics.

In theory that's how it already works. The problem is that everybody is happy with their own representative, it's everybody else that's the problem. Not to mention, changing the system of electing officials requires the approval of said officials.

Amendment (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775038)

Not to mention, changing the system of electing officials requires the approval of said officials.

If it gets bad enough, conventions held in three-fourths of the several states can change anything about U.S. federal law.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (1)

KevMar (471257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774938)

Why, Why are laws a thing you can buy?

Re:Cue the lawsuits (5, Insightful)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774714)

Here's [imgur.com] a start. As far as I know, donating to the EFF also helps people fight the lawsuits.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774824)

I am not sure you can legislate your way out of this in the long run. So I don't know if the 'fight' needs to be an active thing. I mean, piracy aside, maybe Hollywood is doomed to fail because the new platform of games and tablets and phones and social networking and the internet makes it obsolete. Thing is, by the time this happens Hollywood will probably have figured it out and will have used their bankroll to buy the new system, too.

Re:Cue the lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775090)

We can use xbox kinect and video cameras built into the bottom of Internet connected televisions to create an augmented reality virtual replica of the real world. Imagine being able to transport to your neighbor's house five miles away to sit down in augmented reality and talk to him about cars for thirty minutes.

Video games (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774504)

As video games become more complex, they could one day completely supplant films. Already we're seeing near photorealistic visuals, detailed stories, professional voice acting and grandiose soundtracks in games.

Retries destroy the pacing (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774540)

You appear to have the same misconception expressed in point 4 of this Cracked article [cracked.com] . Playing a video game is like watching all the takes of a single scene: you have to rewind to the beginning of the scene every time someone screws up. This completely destroys the pacing.

Re:Retries destroy the pacing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774598)

You appear to have the same misconception expressed in point 4 of this Cracked article [cracked.com] . Playing a video game is like watching all the takes of a single scene: you have to rewind to the beginning of the scene every time someone screws up. This completely destroys the pacing.

It's worth noting this doesn't apply to all video games.

Re:Retries destroy the pacing (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774632)

D'uh. Of course video games don't work like cinema. If they did, we would call them cinema.

Re:Retries destroy the pacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774790)

If you take a look at LucasArts adventure games, they are made to not allow the player to ever die (unless you're playing Monkey Island and decide to stay underwater for 10 minutes). This type of game mechanic could be used to create interactive movie replacements.

There is also the possibility to make a game that unfolds a different story branch depending on whether you complete or fail certain objectives.

Re:Video games (4, Interesting)

Asmor (775910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774554)

Video games really just shift the problem. The ESA (which until very recently supported SOPA, against many of its largest members' public whims) could very well be the MAFIAA of the future.

The problem isn't Hollywood, the problem isn't even industry groups... The problem is publishers. Music labels, in particular, need to die a quick death.

Kill the book publishers. Kill the music labels. Kill the movie studios. Kill the video game publishers. The latter two, I realize, might not quite be feasible yet, as the economics are such that it's really not possible for an unknown group to fund themselves for a large movie or game project, but in the case of books and music? They serve no purpose whatsoever anymore, and are just parasites sucking money out of those they represent, putting impediments in front of those they sell to, and slowing down the pace of technology and innovation.

Re:Video games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774622)

I thought the same, but this approach is really what we need.
Watch this TED talk for more info: http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

Internet radio in the car needs a smartphone (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774644)

in the case of books and music? [Publishers] serve no purpose whatsoever anymore

In the case of books, not everybody has yet bought an e-book reader. Even if you hire a book printer, self-published books aren't as citable [wikipedia.org] and aren't as easy to get onto the shelves of brick-and-mortar bookstores and libraries.

In the case of music, you can't listen to Internet radio in the car or bus without cellular Internet service. So record labels offer the key service of promoting music to people who still aren't willing to pay $50+ per month for a smartphone.

That's half of the picture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774808)

Video game publishers are merely a subset of software publishers. It is evident in the race for patents and subsequent lawsuits that both Microsoft and Apple are becoming irrelevant. Other signs are UEFI keys and significant IP revenue reports from these corporations. As I sit here using free software on a machine that has a Microsoft sticker on the bottom, I consider Windows refund day.

This is all just part of the larger war against general purpose computing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg ). The Internet threatens to change the balance of CONTROL for governments as well as businesses. This disruptive technology has changed the world's paradigm and those in power everywhere are afraid of it. The will of the masses is the movement that they fear the most, and they will stop at nothing to stop it.

Re:Video games (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774656)

Video games are a different form of entertainment. I remember playing games in the mid '90s that tried to be movies, but the effect wasn't really that good because they tended to break the immersion at times for me to choose the next segment.

Movies can go places where games never will be able to go because they can pace the movie and they can ensure that right after that big heartbreaking scene that there's some sort of payback. And they can force you to let the story go places that are probably not going to be comfortable in the short term even though they work out in the long term.

Re:Video games (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774930)

Video games and movies cater to two completely different purposes; movies/films are passive entertainment, you don't need to do anything at all to enjoy it, and there's a clear start and end that both happen with or without you. Games however are atleast semi-active entertainment, you need to do something for start, end and everything in-between to happen. Not to mention that movies/films are the same regardless of how many people are watching them, whereas a game can only have so many players, if you have more people than the game supports or more people than you have gaming appliances the rest of the people will lose out on the experience and it won't anymore be the same for all the participants.

In other words: no, games will never supplant movies/films.

Godspeed to them (5, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774516)

At the end of the day, all things being equal if the government has to step in and decide who it will legislatively favor, I’m hoping it is the tech industry. America is and for a long time has been losing its place in the world. We cannot compete with third world manufacturing, we have deliberately sacrificed our spot as a scientific leader by diverting funds away from a physics supercollider (The Large Hadron Collider in Europe is where future breakthroughs will occur while we now watch on the sidelines), we have given up NASA and future space exploration will be spearheaded by China and India, and we are dumbing down our science, math, and literacy education while the rest of the world ups their game.

We basically have two things left, we are leaders in information technology, and leaders in making Lady Gaga CDs and Chipmunk movie sequels. Which do you believe is doing to be the best industry to foster a friendly environment for to maintain the relevance of America in the world? The media industry exists on the whim of the US government and other governments going along with our endless copyright extensions. Should they decide to stop, there is no value in what they create. Media can be copied for free, there is no scarcity of resources in the distribution, the basic rules of economics don’t work here.

I’m not suggesting that the whole concept of intellectual property is null and void. It has its failings and certainly the way copyright is being handled is despicable (I also feel software patents are insane and detrimental to the information technology industry). But I do know that if this is to be a showdown between two industries, I want the one to win that actually produces something of economic, societal, and tangible value. If Hollywood and the music industry are simply incompatible with technology, then I think we can do without the next Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, but I don’t think we can do without the next Google, Microsoft, or IBM. Do we want to be a country of technical leaders advancing civilization along, or do we want to be the court jesters, a diversion for the Chinese and other emerging technologies to get some cheap laughs from while they surpass us in all other areas?

Re:Godspeed to them (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774676)

The problem with "intelectual property" is shown in the term itself!

Ideas and intelectual ideas aren't "property." When they are "stolen" only a copy is taken, not the actual idea. It's not like if a television is stollen from your house and you no longer have it. The reason we have "intelectual property" is because corporations want to horde ideas and milk every dollar they can out of them.

We're in a tough place in this country. Because of the way money is working our laws are being used for the good of corporations and not for the common good. Money isn't the only type of capitol we need in the U.S. Sometimes if would be better for all of us if the ideas are shared instead of a corporation being able to milk every dime out of an idea. The return for the society could be a thousand times greater since every new idea that is tought up depends on an old idea as its base. When you put too many ideas off limits all of a sudden you can't come up with anything without breaking someone's "IP." The situation with Android and software patents is exibit A.

Re:Godspeed to them (5, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774794)

Intellectual property laws came about as a way to balance public interest with private interest. Without some kind of copyright and patent protection, there is less incentive to create something intangible (like music, software, medicine, etc), especially it it involves significant up front costs and effort. However, to balance this against public interest, time limits were put into place and the concept of patents on non-physical items were not initially considered (that is what copyrights were for).

The last couple decades have seen a total removal of the concept of public interest in IP law, it is now 100% about maximizing profits for distribution middlemen (note: not the actual creators themselves, look who is doing all of the lobbying). Copyright for all intents and purposes is perpetual and dictated by the age of a cartoon mouse, I don't think anyone believes it is not going to be extended the next time it is up for renewal. Patents on non-tangible items (software patents) and on items that were not created but discovered (genetic patents) have further abused the system.

The idea of intellectual property is not inherently bad, but the current execution and the corruption around it now are more detrimental to society than helpful.

Copyright law has become delegitimized by abuses (0)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775218)

But if you copy an artist's work without compensating the artist, you have stolen from them, it is theft of service. There is nothing idealistic about the pirate economy. [vimeo.com]

Re:Godspeed to them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774952)

What is considered property? Generally it is those things that give enforceable rights at law, are transferable by the owner and are excludable.

A car is property - if you own a car you can transfer its ownership and prevent other people from using it and these rights are enforceable at law. A slave or a bag of illegal drugs is not property - the law will no longer uphold any rights. An employment contract is not property - while it may be enforceable by the courts, it is generally not transferable and not excludable (i.e. you can't send someone else to do your job or insist that your employer not hire anyone else to do a similar job).

Debt assets - i.e. if you are the lender - are generally transferable subject to any special-case statutory rules or contractual agreements. So are liens or mortgages securing the debt. They can be transferred along with the debt they secure, and if they were properly drawn up a subsequent borrower cannot create a higher-ranking lien without the original lien owner's co-operation.

So the question of whether intellectual property is 'property' or not has nothing to do with whether it is tangible. Copyright is a legally enforceable right that can be transferred to others and can be used to exclude others from making copies. It therefore meets the criteria to be considered a form of property. Making unauthorised copies violates the excludability aspect of this property. This does not, of course, justify the endless power grabs and misbehaviour by certain businesses and their lobyists, but the phrase 'intellectual property' is not actually wrong. Trademarks and patents also meet the definition of property.

Re:Godspeed to them (3, Funny)

InThane (2300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774848)

We basically have two things left, we are leaders in information technology, and leaders in making Lady Gaga CDs and Chipmunk movie sequels.

You left out high-speed pizza delivery.

Re:Godspeed to them (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774964)

Nah, that cannot be too big of a industry when you think about it.

Music, Movies, & Microcode is where it is at my friend. We're making bucks here - Kongbucks and yen - and we can be flexible on pay and bennies.

Re:Godspeed to them (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775002)

Just to extend on that last one about choices, the rest of the world so mostly goes along with the US because it's a huge and rich market, the GDP is bigger than the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), the UK and France put together. It's a tiny bit smaller than the EU but bigger than the whole Eurozone, that's the weight the US throws around when it's making trade agreements and pushing their IP laws on others. Other countries aren't stupid, if they are to pass laws that would make their companies and their citizens pay more than they get back from US companies and US citizens it's because they get access to US markets. Or just put the laws on the books and have a very relaxed attitude to enforcing them, which the Ayn Rand fans love too.

If the economic center of the planet should shift towards Asia - after all there's over 4 billion people living there so it's a wonder it's not the economic center - then access to US markets will be much less important. A country of "rich" people to sell high end items yes, but if a couple billion people can afford your low-cost item and they buy one each then the US is only 300 million of that. For the long run it could be more profitable for McDonald's to teach a billion Indians and Chinese to eat Big Macs. Then again bad example, since the Americans are eating them like they were a billion already...

Re:Godspeed to them (2, Insightful)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775210)

Destroying Hollywood to save Google is just as stupid as destroying Google to save Hollywood.

Both industries can coexists together just like they do right now. There is no need to be so cynical.

"Kill" is hyperbole (5, Insightful)

Xenophon Fenderson, (1469) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774530)

If you read the announcement, you'll quickly realize that Y Combinator thinks that the industry as a whole is stagnant, and that it sees opportunities for innovation in the realm of entertainment outside of the Hollywood system. Hollywood is dying on its own; Y Combinator wants to invest in the next generation of mass media.

Re:"Kill" is hyperbole (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774670)

Solid point, this is more of a coup de grace. What they really should be aiming for is the RIAA as that's both more accessible and more in need of a mercy killing.

Re:"Kill" is hyperbole (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774732)

A "mercy killing?" Surely you jest. The RIAA doesn't deserve mercy, it deserves to be shot in the back of the head with a .44 and then skullfucked while listening to an album downloaded off TPB.

Re:"Kill" is hyperbole (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775140)

Before you kill them, could we please tear them apart piece by piece for all the revenue they've hidden from the artists they're supposed to represent?

Re:"Kill" is hyperbole (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774766)

But Hollywood isn't just going to defend its own content and allow the likes of Y Combinator to siphon off more of the public's entertainment dollar. They'll be out there, actively killing off alternative market channels with things like SOPA/PIPA. Hollywood isn't happy with the theft of their product. But they can handle that (like they did MegaUpload) with current laws. What they fear is that new content will be produced and distributed through the new channels (all legally) without them getting their cut of the business. These new channels, being more suited to the current market will kill off the Hollywood system.

Cryptomnesia (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774786)

Hollywood is dying on its own; Y Combinator wants to invest in the next generation of mass media.

And Hollywood (both the RIAA and the MPAA) probably wants to invest in lawsuits that make flimsy accusations of plagiarism. Because people create cultural works by "standing on the shoulders of giants", as philosophers from Bernard of Chartres to Sir Isaac Newton put it, anything made by hobbyists must be an infringing copy of something created after 1922, even if only through cryptomnesia [wikipedia.org] .

Re:"Kill" is hyperbole (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775180)

To "kill Hollywood" is not just hyperbole, it is synecdoche.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774534)

I think they're right. TV and movie production and distribution needs an overhaul... bad. We've been saying for years that all aspects of entertainment media are ripe for replacement. The technology has been around forever and available bandwidth to homes is only ever going up. It's time for new money to attack those markets with more rational services that make companies money by providing what the market actually wants.

Also, bring back Firefly. ;)

lemonade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774536)

sounds like "I use lemonade to burn your house down"

business model A wants to kill business model B (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774552)

Two shining examples of capitalist middlemen, the investor and the distributor, each fight for a state of affairs which makes them richer. Each pretends they're doing it for the good of the wider planet.

Objecting to SOPA is one thing, but this is just wanting to "kill" a competitor. You'd instead that people provided different ideas for circenses which feature the sort of thing you have experience investing in so you get even more wealthy.

Follow The Money.... (5, Interesting)

rajeevrk (1278022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774566)

Why dont the top 100 odd tech firms just get their boards together and buy out the entertainment industry, Fire all the old chaff, then figure out what do do with whats left. Even if they end up writing off the entire investment, the savings in reduced interference from a dying industry(Lawsuits, Trusted Computing, SOPA/PIPA etc.) will justify the few hundred billion. Plus, the innovation it will unleash when all those rent-seeking collaboration-killing laws become irrelevant will bring soo much new life into the dying(yes DYING!!) economies of the developed world.

Sadly, i dont have any hope that such a scenario will ever come to pass, especially when most tech firms behaving more like a pot of lobsters...

(sigh...)

Re:Follow The Money.... (0)

rajeevrk (1278022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774586)

>

Sadly, i dont have any hope that such a scenario will ever come to pass, especially when most tech firms behaving more like a pot of lobsters...

(sigh...)

When = With -- blame it on a keyboard spasm...;-)

Re:Follow The Money.... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774666)

I suspect that such a scenario would draw the ire of an antitrust suit. It's been near useless at protecting the public for the last few decades, but I suspect the revolving door of politicians and lobbyists won't stand for one of their most lucrative scams coming to an end.

Re:Follow The Money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774700)

Why dont the top 100 odd tech firms just get their boards together and buy out the entertainment industry...

Their lawyers would never let it happen. I'm betting their lawyers are signed into long-term, pricey contracts that makes it prohibitively expensive for their clients to break. In fact, I bet these contracts are actually 50 or so years old, but with addendum after addendum added, updating them to modern times. The lawyers must get theirs, remember.

Re:Follow The Money.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774718)

Because it is heavily associated with organized crime and taking it over is not as simple as that. It is also why it has so much control over Washington.

Re:Follow The Money.... (4, Insightful)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774750)

Walt DIsney alone is worth 70 billions dollars. No one is going to buy it out unless they can make that money back.

Even if you do that, the old chaff will just start new companies and attract investors because they know how to make money in the entertainment industry.

What is needed is alternative business models to compete with the old industry. It can costs millions of dollars to make movies and there has to be ways to finance it. Follow the money.

Re:Follow The Money.... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775094)

Controlling stake of Disney is already owned by Apple (or Steve Job's estate)

Who says worth 70 B? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775160)

Who says so, really? I mean, think about it. What does Disney have? Rights to Mickey Mouse, a bunch of cartoon movies.

Kids love junk with Mickey Mouse logo on it, of course. But 70 billion? No way. Maybe 2 billion, tops.

Sony, privately held firms, and antitrust (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774908)

Why dont the top 100 odd tech firms just get their boards together and buy out the entertainment industry

I see three problems with that.

First, watch out. Sony (SNE) was the good guy up until around the time it bought Columbia Pictures from Coke (KO).

Second, some of the entertainment industry is privately held (notably Access Industries, parent of Warner Music, and National Amusements, parent of CBS and Paramount) and not subject to a hostile takeover. Some of the rest (e.g. GE's stake in NBCUniversal) is currently owned by companies with a market capitalization over $200 billion.

Third, hostile takeovers of all the publicly traded members of the MAFIAA (CMCSA, DIS, NWS, SNE, TWX, and VIV) might result in investigations from national competition regulators.

Re:Follow The Money.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775120)

the price would rise. When people want to buy something, the people selling the demanded thing can dictate any price.

Distributors stanglehold needs to be broken. (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774568)

Distributors used to be need to sponsor copying films and publicity. They are no longer needed the cinema house can handle all of that directly.
The current process for independents (anyone not in house to a production-distribution conglomerate) is to make a movie, then spend time showing it at festivals looking for a distributor to pick it up so that the film can be copied and promoted. That is no longer needed.

With digital projection there is no need for making expensive copies of films and cinema houses are capable of doing their own advertising (see all the pre-show stuff). There should a path directly from the festivals to the cinema houses.

Cinema houses could do this easily. The problem would be that the next "in house" production blockbuster by a distributor would not be available to the cinema house.

Like the old lady who swallowed a fly (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774590)

What makes them think that new media won't want to protect their copyrights just as much as current media?

People will always want laws benefiting themselves. The problem is that the government is too open to corporate bribery. If politicians couldn't take money from industry, and had to sign non-competes upon taking office, then laws like SOPA wouldn't even get started.

Founders' Copyright (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774934)

What makes them think that new media won't want to protect their copyrights just as much as current media?

Include in the financing conditions that the resulting film must be made available under Founders' Copyright [creativecommons.org] , a time-delayed all-permissive license.

Re:Like the old lady who swallowed a fly (2)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775196)

RTFA

They explicitly make the point that all this legal bullshit is a result of the dying business model:

"If movies and TV were growing rapidly, that growth would take up all their attention. When a striker is fouled in the penalty area, he doesn't stop as long as he still has control of the ball; it's only when he's beaten that he turns to appeal to the ref. SOPA shows Hollywood is beaten."

my new model (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774594)

People:
1) hate advertisements
2) like renting
3) don't want to spend money on garbage
4) don't want to spend more than $5 on on good content

Thus:
Online streaming rental service (2 day rental) of content where the user can watch the first half of whatever program for free (eg. an hour of a two hour movie) and then ~half-way through at a strategic place the movie will pause and allow the person to continue watching it at a nominal fee ... LESS than $5 ($0.25 to $3) -- if it isn't on par with price of any other renter service out there it won't work. This way people can get their money back if they really don't like a movie. If they rent (and pay) the same thing multiple times (two or three for instance) they should automatically OWN a drm-free version of the movie (they've proven they aren't pirates so don't be bitches about it)

Sadly, they're correct (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774626)

There is no dog like a dog in a manger, snarling and barking to defend it's cushy little spot while denying the artists and writers and staff who DESERVE the food their due.

Re:Sadly, they're correct (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774634)

"they're" not "their".

I need another coffee. *yawn*

Re:Sadly, they're correct (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774990)

No, actually you had it right the first time. :-) "Their" is the possessive form of "they".

Capital, as always, is the hard part (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774630)

How does anything get produced these days, shows or movies or games? Someone has to come up with the money, then the movie gets made, then it gets distributed.

Now, ultimately that money is coming from individual people voting with their wallets. If people weren't watching Trek, there wouldn't be Trek. If kids weren't buying Pokemon cards and games, it wouldn't be made.

So, the question isn't a matter of straight economics. It's not like any of this stuff is subsidized. Entertainment is enormously popular, enormously profitable, and gatekeepers are making bank.

Distribution used to be the sticking point. You need theaters to show movies in, television networks to put tv shows on, and physical media to sell into homes. This all is very capital-intensive, costs a lot of money, and there are many barriers to entry.

The internet is fucking the traditional distribution model sideways. Video stores are as dead as Kodak, we're just watching the corpses twitching. Video game stores are in a similar bind.

So, where's the last barrier to entry? Capital. Even if you strip out the inflated salaries, graft, and Hollywood accounting in entertainment, this stuff is expensive to make. While you can shoot a Kevin Smith movie for $20k or make an Angry Birds for $250k (maybe it was $500k), you can't make a GTAIV or the Matrix for that kind of scratch. It takes money.

The technology is pretty much in place for fans to take ownership of their own IP, it's just a matter of setting the precedent. This is the next step that the gatekeepers don't want to see happen. Right now things are basically made on spec -- capital is put up and then profits are made after the product is produced.

So you get a producer who puts out a prospectus for a movie. Here's the plot, here's some storyboards. Target is $x to begin production. It's an investment with no guarantee of return. You kick in $5, you get your name in the credits. If the movie is profitable, you'll get points off it. But more likely the only payback is seeing the film made.

Once the film is released, it can be distributed on Netflix, direct download, physical media, and the books for the project will be left open for public audit. If it makes a profit, the investors can see a return.

If the movie is successful, the producer can pitch his next project and start raising money.

The internet is making the distribution costs cheap, can remove barriers of entry put up by rent seekers and other assholes who are trying to get a cut for not doing a goddamn thing but it still takes a pile of cash to make something. GTAIV was $100m but the typical AAA title on this generation is at least $30m. Even if 75% of the cost is bloat and waste and could be saved with an efficient, targeted effort, that's still a giant pile of cash.

Re:Capital, as always, is the hard part (2, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774784)

Funny. My favourite movies, CDs, and TV shows are not made by big budgets, but by B-movie houses and home editing/recording equipment. While some of the big budget blockbusters are worth the money, for the most part they SUCK because they spend all their time worrying about F/X and gadgetry instead of telling a good story.

The whole "capital" issue is a red herring in my books, an excuse for the status quo.

The MPAA and it's ilk should be reduced to advertising management firms, paid a percentage or flat fee by the movie producers, and have all their current "power" revoked and taken back by the artists.

Re:Capital, as always, is the hard part (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774802)

I think of the current MPAA and RIAA structure as the "banking industry of art". They contribute nothing. They add nothing. All they do is arrange financing, for which they expect OBSCENE payments and distribution control.

Download caps, digital signature, and plagiarism (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774978)

The internet is fucking the traditional distribution model sideways. Video stores are as dead as Kodak, we're just watching the corpses twitching. Video game stores are in a similar bind.

How will Internet distribution cope with the monthly transfer caps that have become common on home Internet access, which in some areas are as low as 5 to 9 GB per month?

So, where's the last barrier to entry? Capital.

That and a digital signature from the manufacturer of a home-user device so that a work will play on the device, especially if the work is a video game in a genre unpopular on PCs. And a search to make sure someone else hasn't already copyrighted the concept of the work. Otherwise, you could end up with a case like The Da Vinci Code (compare The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) or "My Sweet Lord" (compare "He's So Fine").

Just buy them (4, Interesting)

Skreems (598317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774638)

Seriously. Apple has 76B sitting in the bank [latimes.com] , Microsoft has 55B [yahoo.com] . Time Warner has a market cap of 37B [yahoo.com] , hell even the media giant that is Disney/Pixar has a market cap of only 70B [google.com] . A lot of the music companies are a fair bit smaller.

The distribution channels (Apple, Google, etc) are bending over backwards on deals with companies that they could acquire in a hostile takeover tomorrow if they wanted to. It's crazy.

Re:Just buy them (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774746)

are you saying that Henry Ford should have bought all the horse whip workshops as well? that way, they couldn't complain that they were going out of business.
if I had so much money lying around, I would spend it on research, not to pay off the "artists".

Re:Just buy them (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775024)

Difference:

No one wanted horse buggy whips. Everyone wants what the media companies are producing. The only obsolete aspects are the business models and sales channels.

Re:Just buy them (4, Insightful)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774820)

If Apple or Microsoft buys Disney, they will milk money out of it the same way the current management does. Apple would make it worst by only allowing movies to be shown on Apple devices.

If Google buys Disney, they will fund movies by selling product placement spots.

Re:Just buy them (1)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775146)

If Google buys Disney, they will fund movies by selling product placement spots.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression this doesn't already happen? How quaint.

Stake (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774640)

Kill Hollywood ?!? I thought a wooden stake was all that was needed...

Foster Creativity By Shortening Copyright Length (5, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774688)

There is all this raging against "the music industry" and the "film industry." Meanwhile the people doing all the raging are soaking or craving up the products of those industries like mad. Isn't that hypocritical?

I have no problem with the music and film industries vigorously protecting their rights. But I am extremely pissed off that those rights extend for so damn long.

I don't care too much about the parasites who want their movies and music for free. I care a lot about the creative people who want to be able to draw from music and movies from the thirties, forties, and fifties. They should be free to copy and mash and improve on those earlier works. That would make our artistic world a much richer place.

Re:Foster Creativity By Shortening Copyright Lengt (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775122)

Mod parent up.

From where i'm sitting, right's are not only being extended, old rights seem
to bring precedent for completely new rights, spidering throughout systems
which no "industry" should be involved in. Excuse the run-on sentences, i do that
when i get excited; I keep reading about the "Entertainment Industry" and find
myself thoroughly un-entertained.

Re:Foster Creativity By Shortening Copyright Lengt (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775168)

Its not hypocritical to call out when one side is abusing their part of the SOCIAL BARGAIN. No one is denying they make products we want, what we are saying is we are continuously getting the short end of the BARGAIN we struck. Copyright isnt intended to be a free pass to print money, its meant to incentivize the creation process for a LIMITED time. Its hypocritical of you to say you hate the laws these industries have gotten passed, yet you support their right to rigorously defend wholly immoral extensions of their rights and diminishing of The People's right to free culture.

They're called apps (1)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774708)

"new types of entertainment" Duh, they're called apps.

Re:They're called apps (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774862)

"new types of entertainment" Duh, they're called apps.

Then it might be hard to say which is worse, the disease or the cure... And actually apps are working just like the dying Hollywood model, they're usually centrally redistributed, come with a strict DRM and are selected according to secret rules and removed at the whim of the single vendor. "Walled garders" is what we're trying to escape here.

"There's an app for that" is a cheesy marketing slogan, not an answer to an actual problem, my dear.

Somewhere to start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774730)

After WWII, to pay down the war debt, the Feds imposed a 20% excise tax on movies. The tax was collected at the ticket booth, by the theaters. Now, I'm usually opposed to taxes, but everyone should pay their fair share.

Impose a 20% tax on the gate receipts for all products from Hollywood.

Alternatives already exist (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774736)

Alternative media and distribution already exists, and the main goal of the legislations Hollywood is lobbying for is exactly to stop them. It wil be hard to kill Hollywood using technology when they can outlaw any technology that competes with them.

I've suggested this before. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774836)

A long time ago in a reality far far away... TV broadcasters had series shot to sell advertisements. Why can't web sites do it? Slashdot does. Taking that a step further, why not integrate advertisements into a video. With P2P technology, any company can have a series produced, insert advertisements for their products, and let file sharing do the rest. Would you, the average /.'r, have greater knowledge about a company and its products if they provided good intertainment for daily download? I would.

Ally with anti-American countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774856)

You know what would be a great place to start a replacement for MegaUpload? Venezuela or Bolivia. They hate the US, they hate American companies, and they'd be willing to do anything to screw over American interests. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales would be willing to have their governments directly fund such a project if it was pitched to them as something specifically aimed at fucking over American multinationals (and let's face it: the MAFIAA are all multinationals).

Re:Ally with anti-American countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775164)

But you're still in the US...

Remove corporate fake citizenship.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38774898)

Here's the problem with Corporate Citizenship...

They claim all of the rights and privileges without any of the responsibilities.

Taxes? Avoided by placing shell companies outside the borders and funneling sales through them.
Draft? Who to draft? They claim they are LLCs or INCs which no one individual can be held responsible for. No one individual to lay the blame or responsibilities on.
Jury duty? Employees as individual citizens certainly, but the corporate citizen can't be brought in to sit through jury duty.
Criminal offenses? Again, no one or group of individuals to be held accountable unless it's done by the mobs and so publicly that the government has no choice *but* to intercede and do something. Otherwise, they get a little fine of maybe 1/100th of their profit from the illegal action and it's back to business as usual.

So how do we fix it?

Remove the ability to avoid taxes. If you sell products to US citizens, you pay US taxes off that sale - stop income tax, make national sales tax.
Draft? Additional taxes on the corporation equivalent to pulling the bread-winner from a family of 4 to go to war. Essentially, yank 80% of their income if their number is drawn.

Jury Duty? Sorry, but most officers of companies are so narrow minded and focused that we really don't want them on juries.

Criminal Offenses... All officers of the company held responsible based on their salary/bonuses/perks/golden parachutes/etc. If the company does X, all officers get the full punishment allowable by law.

Political Donations: Cut off 100% Any corporation trying to donate to a political campaign gets fined 2 Billion dollars for every dollar donated, no bankruptcy loophole, officers held accountable.

Lobbying: No lobbyists can hold prior or after positions in corporations that benefit from the lobbyist's efforts. All lobbying must be for the good of the people, not corporations.

Outsourcing: Made illegal. Fines 1 billion per outsourced employee, per day.

Wall Street: Shut down. Speculation: Ended Futures: No longer sold, or if sold, person buying must pay all associated fees for growing, harvesting, storing, shipping said products until they are sold. Make the costs of ownership be true.

Intellectual Property: Call it what it really is. Imitation Property. Imagined Property. Pseudo Property. It's not real, it doesn't exist. Ideas once shared belong to whomever they were shared with.

Software patents: Ended. Gone. Never allowed again.

MPAA / RIAA - Shutdown / Gone / Forbidden from ever existing again. Get the money made to the people who make the works they're claiming ownership of.

Re:Remove corporate fake citizenship.... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775204)

You really dont understand the concept of LLC do you? Disallow corporations from the political process and strip citizenship should be more then enough to roll back the most heinous of corporate offenses we are seeing now.

Piffle (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774900)

I'm all for it for a variety of reasons not even listed, the first thing you have to do is get people to stop watching TV.

See what you're up against? Not Hollywood, Hollywood wouldn't even exist except for the masses that need to be endlessly entertained and at this point the last 2 generations were raised by TV so that's what you're really up against, a fundamental aspect of everyones lives.

What is the alternative to Hollywood? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774936)

Unless you have an alternative way to raise money to finance movies and TV shows, you can't compete with Hollywood. It's all about money.

If Google wants to get in the business, they will finance movies using advertising, which copies the 60 year old business model of broadcast television. It will just be more of the same.

Re:What is the alternative to Hollywood? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775114)

Unless you have an alternative way to raise money to finance movies and TV shows, you can't compete with Hollywood. It's all about money.

The article is about financing. From the article: "we want to fund startups that will compete with movies and TV". The hard part after that is getting the works into the traditional distribution channels that aren't affected by home Internet transfer caps (for movies and TV shows) or by the cost of smartphone service (for music).

The attention limit now prices copyright material (3, Interesting)

beachdog (690633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774976)

Another way of looking at the copyright licensing problem is the continuing assumption that every single copyrighted item must be sold for a specific price under the terms of a custom sales contract that is unique to every item sold.

OK, I am stating the copyright goods sales assumption in an overly dramatic form.

The first problem that the Internet has created is the electronic distribution of any kind of copyrightable object costs less than a penny. A file that costs 1/10 of a cent to transmit over the Internet is overwhelmed by the 45 cent credit card transaction fee.

The second problem that the Internet has created is there is so much copyrighted material available that every person in the developed world has more copyrighted content available than that person can possibly attend to. As a perceptive analyst has pointed out: The Internet has created a state of information saturation.

A single human being can only absorb x hours of movies, books or research material transmitted over the Internet in a single month. That means, a fair payment for copyrighted material is limited to Y dollars for x hours per month per person.

So what this would point to is a mandatory automatic quitclaim copyrighted material payment system. No matter what the content is, the total payment price should be somewhere around 1 penny per hour of file transfer time. It should be so cheap that a user's personal storage would simply be full and only a relative few items stored.

What is Hollywood worth anyway (2)

AxeTheMax (1163705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38774998)

In support of the comments that this industry can be brought out; I refer you to this interesting comparison on what entertainment is worth, even if it is both UK specific and music specific. From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/3343543/Country-roses-A-cut-above.html [telegraph.co.uk] . The value of retail cut flowers (e.g. roses for your mother when she is in hospital) in the UK is about the same as that for music. It puts it all in perspective, especially when you consider that flower growers do not lobby governments to prevent us from giving our home grown roses to our friends.

Copyright laws not related to Constitution (0)

RavenManiac (220921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775016)

What's wrong with today's copyright laws? Almost everything. Copyrights don't serve the creators/inventors by having limited duration to encourage progress. They don't benefit end users since censorship and threats don't encourage progress. Copyrights are wrongly held by distributors, moneyed interestes and heirs, not creators, and don't encourage progress.

Article I Section 8 Clause 8: "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;..."

All copyright laws need to be void. Start over and protect authors and inventors with EXCLUSIVE right to their writings and discoveries. All other permutation of copyright law are detrimental to progress.

They'll just become the new Hollywood (1)

guanxi (216397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775092)

It's exciting to take down the old tyrant, but once the 'new' industry obtains power and wealth, they will become the new tyrants for the same reasons the old ones did: Many people will have a lot of money, their careers, and status invested in their enterprise, and being people, will do whatever they can to protect it.

We need to make changes to our legal structure, etc, now that will prevent it and keep competition open.

creative destruction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775108)

OK, if we are going to have another inevitable round of the "creative destruction" business model... can it be done without killing the jobs of people who had nothing to do with SOPA and the entire rights problem? lighting, grip, electical, camera and other technicians are just working people. Don't penalize them by killing their jobs to achieve this objective.

not a bad idea, but who's going to pony up? (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775144)

Something that strikes me as sort of odd is how much bitching is going on about how painful this recession is, compared to reality.

Starting with the moniker being thrown around. I mean, come on, "The Great Recession"? Is it really necessary to make it out to be more than it is, are the current living generations such coddled masses that they need to be stroked and told how gee tough it must be living through The Great Recession?

And where is this fucking Great Recession?

Because last I noticed, the entertainment industries were just as rolling in it this year as any other. The gaming, movie, television, sports conglomerates have raked in huuuuuge amounts of dough. That's supposedly dough we don't have because ohhhhh fuuuuck there's this whoooole Greeeaatt Recession going onnnnn, maaannn!

Well, wtfe. But anyways, this leads to my subject-heading question:

Who's going to pony up against Hollywood? I mean, pony up the non-cash, the negative expenditures. Who's going to throw their wallet down, stomp on it, and say "damnit, that's right, no more money for those fucking kooks and poisoners for me!"

Imagine what you'd be downgrading from. Well, it's not a huge leap of imagination, for me. I haven't been a regular TV watcher in years. I haven't sat in a movie theatre and watched a movie in years. I haven't gone out and rented a new movie to watch in years. So, for me, *I* have to imagine what you'd be downgrading from, if you, say, depended entirely on YouTube for your viewing entertainment from now-on.

You'd be going from Transformers to MikeDiva. From Saturday Night Live back to Second City, and from Mad TV to the Bath Boys. From Martin Scorcese to Sam Macaroni. From underwear advertisements to cleavage whores.

I already live this lifestyle. It's easy for me to not give Hollywood or network congloms my money because, well, I don't have any money to give them really, but also because I've already been getting nearly 100% of my entertainment from YouTube for several years. Before that, I really wasn't exactly a regular customer to begin with, so it wasn't a huge transition.

But Americans who are hitting the theatres twice a month, renting the latest flicks once a week, and subscribing to cable or satellite TV, are going to have some trouble getting behind any movement to squash "Hollywood", which is really, really, way bigger than just a little suburb in California or a bunch of warehouses, agencies and execs.

It's practically our entire culture, sadly enough.

You're actually talking about making American culture do a 180.

Why this is a bad idea (or a great idea) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775150)

The indie film movement in the 1990s was a great start at creating a system where filmmakers could get movies made outside of the Hollywood studios and we could hear stories and viewpoints from all over the country, not just one town in southern California. Unfortunately, while many films managed to get made, they never came up with a distribution system. They ultimately had to bow down to Hollywood to get their films into movie theatres.

However, some of these movies made lots of money and got Academy Awards (like Pulp Fiction) so all the Hollywood studios started their own independent film arms, invested just enough money into it to attract all the indie filmmakers (also because distribution was guaranteed), and totally usurped the indie film business. Once the indie film business was decimated, they shut down all their indie film arms and went back to making comic book movies. Now we have a lot of good, creative directors making crappy, generic Hollywood fluff instead of lending their unique voices to the world.

Robert Redford was to be the king of indie movies, and he still is, but his power over the market is minimal. He got films made, but they never made money, or even got seen outside of film festivals. The only guy who ever made Hollywood eat their lunch was Harvey Weinstein, and even his studio got bought by Disney and, as expected, bit the dust. Harvey is still indie and still getting award nominations, but mostly for stuff he imports from Europe (looks like this year will be "The Artist")

So coming up with a fantastic new movie distribution system is a great idea, but there's few movies outside of Hollywood to distribute, and the only thing that will get Hollywood interested is if they can make MORE money than they're making with their current methods - methods which may be old fashioned, but they have been proven to work and they know how to control every step of the process. So go ahead and find a way to make more money than Hollywood does, and you'll have it made.

I think it would be easier to just buy them than to fight them.

Yea OK guys good luck with that (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775216)

I maybe watch a move once a year at the cinema, and use the redbox about the same, but for every person like me, there are 3 people like my co-worker who shuffles down to best buy every week and gets like 5 blu-rays of shit he has never even seen cause he is going to get bonus reward points to purchase more shit that he has never even seen.

I had a roommate like that to, piss away 100 bucks on just utter garbage dvd's to get a 25$ reward from media play, and as long as people are actually dumb enough to buy a ben stiller movie not once, but fucking twice cause they cant even remember whats in their 3 bookshelves of crap, then hollywood will thrive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>