Debriefing > Off-Topic Lounge

MPAA threatens to disconnect Google from the Internet

<< < (3/4) > >>

VC:

--- Quote from: KM ---What's it to the MPAA if I want to play my song on my Droid X or my laptop or my desktop?
--- End quote ---
That would be RIAA, since it's a song, and what they want is for you to lease a license for three devices.

Wake[of]theBunT:

--- Quote from: Gabbo on February 11, 2011, 03:55:08 am ---I'd be happy enough if the price of a Bluray topped out at $25 bucks instead of starting there. They'll never go 'pay what you want', it doesn't make sound business sense for them.

--- End quote ---

I tend to agree. I usually have to wait 6 months for a title to go below my 20$ single title limit (I don't mind going to 50-70$ for trilogy sets etc), or I keep an eye out for one off specials on places like amazon.

And I guess technically you could rip blu-rays KM, but I know thats a hassle more than just downloading a device ready copy.

markpeterjameslegg:
The standard of movies today is low in my opinion compared to the 80's and 90's, at least they were original back then. This is the most unoriginal time period in history without a doubt, I personally have no problem buying great films on DVD, I prefer to have a nice collection that I can be proud of, I have all the classic stuff from the 80's and 90's, not to mention all the sitcom's on DVD as well. But I rarely buy anything these day's, and I'm quite frankly fed up with the never ending pointless remakes... What's next... A Goonies remake, don't even bother.

VC:
It makes sense when you look at it economically.

Hollywood is pretty well locked down into a monopoly structure.  It is fragmented between MPAA, SAG, etc., but you're either inside the system or you are indie, and if you are indie, you will be climbing a mountain to compete and if you succeed, you will be absorbed by the system because it will want to suck your blood and will pay you handsomely for the priviledge.

Monopolies naturally price to maximize their own profit, which creates a deadweight loss to society since in all but strange coincidental cases, the point of maximum profit won't be the equilibrium price of the perfectly competitive market.  Not only does this affect things like DVD prices, but it affects the product itself.

Making an original film is more expensive than filming a re-make.  The original film takes work to develop and write, and then you have to promote it and hope that it is popular enough to make a profit.  A remake is cheap; most of the work is done.  You just hire some names, revise the old script to include product placement in the form of handheld cellular telephones and include a token black/woman/both actor that is popular at the moment, punch up some special effects for the trailer, and the original work's popularity will promote this for you.  High profit thanks to low costs, even if the film does not perform well at the box office or rental service.

The deadweight cost here is your opportunity to see an original film being thrown away so they can produce fodder for a future Nostalgia Critic Old Versus New reel.


Perhaps part of their motivation is concern that the technology to be a well-received indie is developing rapidly enough to become a threat.  I don't think that it is; Flash has been around for a very long time, now, and despite Newgrounds giving people a place to showcase, there are very, very few Flash videos that are truly works of art.  Even with a Hollywood SFX studio coming into your computers via BitTorrent, only about 0.01% of films made with it will make you say "holy shit," just like how only 0.01% of Flash videos both push the medium to its limits and present a work that is worth viewing.  The rest is/would-be amateur hour and chaff.

Now, stepping back to music.  Yes, music is a more-open environment.  It is very possible for one guy at home with a computer to knock out two excellent albums a year with pro-grade mastering, turning a real profit measured in dollars instead of pennies, selling both digital and physical media to his fans.  But, that only happens if the public knows who that guy is.

Radiohead turned big numbers with their tip-jar system because:
* Lots of people know about Radiohead, because they were introduced through The System.
* Lots of people like Radiohead, because they make better music than the other bands introduced through The System.
* Lots of people want more Radiohead, enough to look for more Radiohead.
* Fans of Radiohead, the ones who will buy branded merchandise, like shirts, stickers, and mouse-pads, see the tip-jar as another way of supporting the band, and will give various-degrees-of-generously because despite the opportunity to take the music for free, by paying, they become a part of the band.  It's the same effect as charity drives where you pay for something trivial like cookies or lemonade.

It would not work for Name Of Unknown Band In State Of Your Choice because they aren't established like Radiohead is, and that is where the big vision of a world where anyone can make it big in music with a computer and a microphone falls apart.  One, you must somehow bootstrap yourself amidst countless other musicians with the same hope, motivation, and goal as you.  Two, you all are competing for the same dollars.  Of course, each potential buyer has different tastes, but each potential buyer has only so many dollars they're willing to spend on music, and dividing the competition by genre doesn't change the fact that you're amongst thousands fighting over any given fistful of pocket change.

Wake[of]theBunT:
Yeah VC, I still think if a band is an emerging artist, with some good critical review, and being promoted around, they should offer their album for a few dollars less because then they sell more albums, which is a good marketing ploy for album #2, and def for me Itunes ability to preview each song on an album is invaluable.

I only buy bands where the music literally moves me... not like cry or whatever. I mean where it gets in me and makes me feel something substantial inside, either the sound of the music or a combination of the types of songs and lyrics, and where I wanna listen to at least 4 of their songs in a playlist all that week.

For instance...Ben Folds does not move me, but I'd say a handful of catchy song appear from time to time, and I just acquire most of his music I liked over the years. Same with coldplay, I like some of it, but I wouldn't say it moves me.

Where as, One Dollar Short, a band who disbanded some years back now, I owned all their albums even though I had the internet and could of just did what I do. Because it was something special to me. Similarly, Chevelle. I like basically 80-90% of their music. Whatever I consider to be unique bands within genres, or the best bands/artists within the genres. That's who gets my money.

At this point, I trial everything, which isn't much. I watch youtube uploads to try discover some rare gems. Mostly, I despise the current crop of artists and the directions they are taking.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page