what happens if SOPA passes?

Le Bateau OTM, so glad I snagged all those old Mutantsounds posts that are now gone, maybe forever.

the ephemerality of all this appeals to me, maybe perversely. we can now look back to the last few years as a golden era of free musical obscurities. i mean, who cares if it's all yanked away? we can all move on to other things.

reconnect with your families and shit.

I won't reference specific posts but there has been so much otm in this thread today. All this is the direct result of the fact that content industries cannot manufacture scarcity anymore, but continue to behave as though scarcity is still possible. A lot needs to change very quickly.

Yesterday in Australia, news broke that Quickflix (our pissweak version of Netflix) partnered with HBO in the US to deliver its content in Australia, 12 to 18 months after its US broadcast. Again, manufacturing scarcity at a time when there's no such thing. It's like the internet never happened.

american media companies seem to really despise australia for some reason

american media companies seem to really despise australia for some reason

otm. The official line is that we're not big enough to give a shit about, but clearly we're big enough from them to go out of their way to geoblock us and blatantly overcharge us.

I should link one of the myriad reports I've read recently that states Australia has one of the highest concentrations of online piracy in the world.

big enough from FOR them

still more otm there

Autumn, does the same situation pretty much apply to NZ?

How do you kill the movie and TV industries? Or more precisely (since at this level, technological progress is probably predetermined) what is going to kill them? Mostly not what they like to believe is killing them, filesharing. What's going to kill movies and TV is what's already killing them: better ways to entertain people. So the best way to approach this problem is to ask yourself: what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?

http://ycombinator.com/rfs9.html

It's even worse in NZ. Like Aus, NZ doesn't have Netflix or Hulu or Spotify, or anything like those services; it also has a draconian three-strikes law, which allows content owners to cut off the internet connections of those who are merely accused of online copyright infringement.

xp

So, by using geoblocks and similar techniques, the content industry is actually forcing many parts of the world into overpriced and delayed content, and then whingeing when their potential customers find a way around it.

btw this is what I mean about piracy being a red herring. The companies who bankrolled SOPA and PIPA are not afraid of piracy, they're afraid of the impending death of their business structures. The vast majority of online piracy is conducted by people who have no way of getting what they want, and enterprising types who have figured out how to profit from that demand.

FFS. So stupid.

The whole content industry is built entirely on distribution models of the past. The internet is rapidly doing away with the need for physical media, freight, warehousing, international divisions, brick & mortar retail, and so on. When all that goes – and it has to, sooner or later – jobs will be lost on a huge scale. It's a big game of Jenga that's got out of hand, basically.

I'm decidedly not looking forward to having to send off to Argentina or Korea and getting CDs in the post six to eight weeks later like i did in 1999. As good as Spotify, iTunes and even torrents might be, they're pretty useless for a lot of foreign language stuff. One of the great things about music being freely available is that it broke down all the geographical barriers involved in distributing records. There's no technological reason paid-for downloads should be any different but it just hasn't happened.

bingo bango bongo - the idea that a whole bunch of albums are readily downloadable on Japan iTunes but not in America is so ridiculous. like I'd easily plunk down $10 apiece for a ton of Japanese albums if only they were available; if it's between a slow, $60 import and piracy, well yeah

All this is the direct result of the fact that content industries cannot manufacture scarcity anymore, but continue to behave as though scarcity is still possible.

truth bomb

the internet and inexpensive digital production tools have totally obviated the need for the studio/major label system, and hollywood has realized this, and is scared. hollywood was built around the idea that movies required large amounts of Capital to be realized---you needed sound stages, big expensive cameras, and armies of people. plus pricey film duplication processes, projectors, and entire buildings given over to the experience of watching. only people that were already super wealthy could afford to invest in such an undertaking, and lo the movie mogul was born.

now a person can create a full-length film that looks and sounds just as PRO as a "real" movie with like $5000 of capital investment (i'm just talking camera + computer + software here). and they could distribute it, on the internet, immediately. hollywood really doesn't even have to exist anymore, nor should it.

the idea that any of this is actually about the protection of intellectual property ("no one will make art anymore!") is ludicrous.

I'd easily plunk down $10 apiece for a ton of Japanese albums if only they were available; if it's between a slow, $60 import and piracy, well yeah

That's exactly it. People will pay if the price is reasonable, and now more than ever customers and consumers know when they're being ripped off.

I subscribe to the New Yorker on my iPad. It costs me the same as it costs an American, and I get my copy the second it comes out in the US. I don't need to even go looking for illicit copies, because it's easy, instant and affordable.

gbx 100% otm btw

I've always had issue with the RIAA's definition of 'ownership' when it comes to music. It'd be like if you bought a lawnmower from Sears, and they said you couldn't loan it to your friends for them to mow their lawn or you'd be heavily fined.

cory doctorow finishing a book abt copyright

i am v much looking fwd to it

i think it's sorta interesting that for at least one ~guy i know~ the only reason he's seen any recent studio films is because there's no fucking way he's going to pay $15 to see like Role Models or w/e. it's not a "well i was GOING to but now it's free on the internet" situation, it's a "well i guess if it's free, but otherwise no thank you."

thing is, if i had an apple TV, i would probably rent 2.99 movies like mad. AA otm re: convenience. right now if i want to watch a movie on my borrowed insanely large TV (thanks sis) i can:
1) walk a few blocks to the RedBox, which has nothing i want usually, because movies stink
2) find a torrent, wait an hour or two for it to DL, convert it into a DVD burnable format, burn it, watch

what i'd really like is 3) beam directly to my television, in HD, for a few bucks. or at least allow iTunes to burn DVDs of movies i've actually purchased from them. i can't, and that's why i've only purchased one movie. i HAVE purchased several seasons worth of TV shows, though, why becuase they have them and are easier/faster than tracking down eps on the internet

thing is, if i had an apple TV, i would probably rent 2.99 movies like mad.

HD Apple TV movies cost us AU$5–6 to rent. It's a rip-off compared to what you're paying there, but it's still cheap enough and easy enough that we just do it without thinking. Why get off our arses and poke around torrent sites when we could be watching a perfect copy in 40 seconds?

btw what we have access to on the Apple TV is months behind what you get, so it's not an acceptable solution by any means.

oh i'm sure

fwiw if anyone needs a startup, just make the film version of Bandcamp (which is what Vimeo ought to do, if they're smart). the Louis CK thing shows that its possible for that model to be successful.

The problem with the Louis CK/Radiohead model is that they got a leg up through the old media structures. That's not to say it isn't possible, it just takes different thinking and concentrated effort.

This article discusses how Charles Dickens embraced technology and responded to piracy, in particular this:

Dickens knew that he couldn’t expect either his or our government to do anything about stopping piracy, so he put in the effort himself to outcompete the pirates—he came to American shores and did reading circuits, building a face-to-face relationship with his fans. And he contracted with American publishers to offer inexpensive officially-endorsed (and royalty-paying) versions of his books.

it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.

"still wants to see" -- i sounds like popeye.

So I've been kind of testing out the new landscape last night and tonight, looking for The Beach Boys' L.A. Light Album, an album that is OOP and impossible to find without shelling out triple figures for a used copy (of a shitty album no less!). Anyway, I've turned up tons of links, but they were all megaupload and obviously dead or from another site that voluntarily pulled 'em. So, no luck with this particular album so far.

we should make that the official way to test the general availability of pirated music. "i deem it... the l.a. light album test."

On the one hand, it's awfully entitled to expect access to everything that has ever been released. On the other hand, if that expectation is not fed it leads directly to piracy. They can moan all they like but it's a fact.

Copyright owners need to look at how things have changed, understand that people will get what they want, and ask themselves whether or not they want to be paid for their work.

Oh god. Last sentence of first paragraph belongs at end of second paragraph.

it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.

well do we really *need* avatar? is the pleasure that avatar brought to the world so great that it can't be replaced by other things?

it's not really fair to say that with DYI electronics people could make avatar or even j. edgar. in fact it's wrong. you can make a reasonably nice-looking movie for cheaper than ever before. but not one with big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI, etc. hollywood still makes movies that nobody else can afford. and to a considerable extent those are the movies a lot of people around the globe still wants to see.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:09 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was going to include the obvious avatar caveat, but since you brought it up: big sets, big stars, extras, fancy CGI are all really nice, but not at all necessary for film production. like, not even one of those. and to say that hollywood movies are the movies that people around the globe want to see is a little tautological: they're the only movies they can see!

big sets can be replaced by shooting on location---it's easier than ever to find already built structures/"scenes" within striking distance of population centers. obv that involves permits, travel, w/e, but i'd hazard that that is still markedly cheaper than building an exact duplicate of the 14th century manor (or dingy tokyo apartment or factory catwalk)that exists in the filmmaker's mind's eye. and cameras are tiny now, and can be variably lensed, so the constraints of maneuvering a dolly or a crane or w/e are becoming less important.

big stars are big by the same tautology as before---they're big because they're common currency all over the world...because they're the only people in films that get seen all over the world. who cares. they only command the prices they do (and therefore important to a film as it is an investment) because someone else stands to make ~even more money~ than what they're paid. after that someone has piled in a bunch of money. if you're making a cheap film, with cheap actors, then global recognition (ie - literal hundreds of millions of ppl giving a shit) is a pretty tertiary concern

extras---if you want a shitload of ppl to do exactly what you want them to (battle!) then yeah, maybe that's an issue. then again, you could probably get a bunch of college kids to do it free if you tell them they'll be in a movie. if you just want to simulate a busy place, shoot in a busy place (nb i have no idea if there are legal concerns here w/r/t waivers or something).

fancy CGI---thing is, not even that fancy CGI can address both the big set and extras problems. not as well as the real thing, but its not like a film needs great SFX (or even SFX equivalent to its contemporaries) to be worthwhile.

now, i'm not saying that non-hollywood films could make movies ~like~ hollywood movies. you can't make avatar ii with tom cruise and a thousand living breathing na'vi in front of a giant green screen on a sub-millions budget. i'm saying that, with digital reproduction/distribution, it's not a big deal.

we should make that the official way to test the general availability of pirated music. "i deem it... the l.a. light album test."

lol, this might not be a bad idea! Honestly it just came to mind because I've never heard it and I've been reading Catch A Wave this week.

well do we really *need* avatar? is the pleasure that avatar brought to the world so great that it can't be replaced by other things?

Yeah, that's commerce innit. If there's a way to pull in US$500m from a film that costs US$150m to make, such films will always be bankrolled. If people stop caring about lavish special effects and no longer shell out US$10–20 or whatever a cinema ticket costs now, they won't be made and few people will care.

Anyway, technology is advancing so quickly that the exact film Avatar would cost far, far less if it were made all over again in 2020.

also 'making a $100+ million film' is not some universal art form that's going away - it's something that was really possible for very few people, in very few circumstances.

I mean god, people only ever got excited about Avatar because it was made. The studios set a high expectation by promising the hugely expensive movies in the first place.

Also, looking at the artistry side of it: while Cameron and his band of merry designers were making Avatar, 99.999% of the world's creative minds were living on packet mi goreng.

xp YES SNAP

another way of looking at it is: if hollywood wants to make their hella pricey movies hella pricey, then they can make them more expensive to see (download on itunes or w/e). i'm sounding like a ron paul supporter here, but the "content market" ought to be as laissez faire as possible. make a $200M movie with big name actors? price it accordingly.

the fact that we've spent the last few decades spending the same to see terminator 2 as we did prime has some pretty weird implications for how movies have been made and distributed. the maker of a $20k film doesn't need to recoup that much to have made it worth their while---but if the basement for ticket prices is like $8, then they're going to have a tough time getting ppl to choose their thing over the latest, familiar hollywood vehicle. if they can sell it on some website where they can choose their sale price, then they have a better chance of getting bums in seats. imo Steam is a good example of this working, sorta (nb - i am not a gamer nerd, so maybe they are so bad and hated, but it seems like big deal games have big deal prices, and one guy in sweatpants games are more closely tied to the burger index).

that there will be losses due to pirating in any case seems like a reality to be faced, rather than one legislated away. most businesses already plan for this (eg a store knowing that employees steal shit), and extract a bit from the consumer---but not a lot. if it's easy to buy a movie (in the format i want to buy it in), and even just a bit harder to pirate it, i'm going to buy it. as will really, really a lot of other people.

what's funny is that hollywood was predicated on the lived experience of seeing a movie---go to the pictures! but they are somehow unable to adapt to the fact that most people watch and experience movies, most of the time, on things that are not movie screens. that ought to be their problem, not mine.

All true. I hardly ever see new films these days, because the films I want to see are not being made (or if they are, not released in Australia). They all just look like $100M+ abortions. Would not be sad to see that aspect of cinema collapse. Some of my favourite films, the 40s-50s noirs, are so great in part because their creators made a virtue of their budgetary constraints.

Basically, a system that conceives, funds and makes 'Battleship' can go and get fucked

i'm not saying a movie needs any of those things to be good (have you ever read anything i've posted here?). i'm just saying there's a certain type of movie that requires giant cash infusions that isn't likely to be made by the guy down the street. and i don't just mean avatar or mission impossible or whatever.

and i honestly don't think this type of movie would be doomed to irrelevance if the current regime of manufactured scarcity and anti-piracy were to hold back. no doubt there are essential industrial factors here, like the crowding out of distribution channels of other types of films, etc. but i do think that stars are a big part of the attraction of filmgoing, as are the kinds of manufactured worlds or idealized representations that, yes, require outlays (tell me one movie made for less than $30 million that looks convincingly like a big hollywood picture).

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

that ought to be their problem, not mine.

This is utterly utterly otm, and sums up the entire situation imo.

Also I genuinely think that in 50 years' time people will look back on this era as hilariously lavish and over the top. 'They used to spend WHAT on making movies??'

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

new tech won't, $ will

I hate most new films as much as anyone, but can anyone honestly name even 10 truly DIY films that are any good?

people who watch diy films probably can

i'm not defending (or condemning) this, i just think it's naive to suggest that new technologies left to their own devices would completely shatter the hold the major studios--or functional equivalents of the major studios--have over the film marketplace.

I think it will if they resist for long enough.

bwt gbx's suggestion of price tiering for movies with expensive budgets is not unlike the price tiering iTunes uses for music right now, e.g. singles and popular songs cost ~25% more than standard album tracks. It seems to be working for music, so I see no reason it couldn't work for movies. People already spend a fortune on home cinemas and Blu-ray special 48-disc editions of Things Exploding II; it's certainly within the means of those people to pay US$30 to see it in a cinema.

xpost and WHO ARE THOSE PEOPLE

I dunno. people who make them? morbs maybe?

This is just one example, but I dug 'Monsters' more than almost any SFX-heavy film from the last couple of years, and it was made for half a million dollars. And so now the director's been hired to do the latest attempt to remake Godzilla, which will probably cost 200x as much and be less good.