“There’s still no rhyme or reason to what films are available in any digital form. If, for example, you happen to have a videotape player around, you can watch an old VHS version of The African Queen. But you can’t buy it on DVD or download it from any of the Hollywood-sanctioned online services,” Stephen H. Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.
“The basic problem is that Hollywood is attempting to preserve an analog business model in a digital age. The result is a crazy quilt of availability in different media, in different geographies, and at different times,” Wildstrom reports.
“All of this makes little sense in a world where digital copies, legal or otherwise, are freely available,” Wildstrom reports.
“I don’t want to condone piracy. Yet it’s hard to condemn—or resist—when there’s a commodity item out there on the market and the vendor, for no particular reason, neglects to make it available to buyers. In short, the effort studios are making to preserve a dying business model seems increasingly pointless,” Wildstrom reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote just yesterday, “We continue to recommend Apple TV highly (over time, the device just keeps getting better and better for free) while warning prospective buyers that Hollywood seems to be stingy with legal content (movie rentals especially) for the device. If you purchase an Apple TV to play movie content (the device offers many more features and shines in many of them), you may want to take matters into your own hands if what you want to see is unavailable. Learning nothing whatsoever from the music industry, the Hollywood studios are stupidly encouraging piracy by not flooding iTunes Store and Apple TV with content.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
Availability has little to do with how the media is stored, beyond the cost of the media, but that individuals and corporations can own the collective work of many many people and CONTROL who, how and when the work is seen is the crime. A movie is not the product (very very rarely( of a single auteur, but is in fact a social product that even the viewer has contributed to (via discussion-critique) when they share their thoughts and experiences with others…
Once a product has been released it should become “public domain” in terms of distribution and availability. Anything less is censorship!
I watch any movie using Front Row on my MBP by putting an alias in the ‘movies’ folder, and using Perian in quicktime. I also stream using iTunes sharing on a G5. I assume you could also use this model to stream to Apple TV. I’m still testing using the MBP as a Front Row media center via Apple Remote and VGA cables. VGA cables are $5, play 1280×720 fine, although not digitally, and should hook up to any monitor or LCD TV. Insert a 1/8 to 1/8 (or RCA), for audio, and there we go!
You are an idiot. The studios and labels, even with their ridiculous behavior regarding availability of content, are the copyright holders because they put up millions of dollars of their own money to produce movies, television shows, CD’s, websites, etc. True, movies and TV shows are put together by teams of people, but those people are professionals who are generally well paid and understand what their role is. By your logic, a struggling musician who is able to find an audience through the magic of the internet would have to give up his legal claim to his own work. Oh wait, since he’s an indie guy you say it’s okay for him to have a copyright claim? Oh, now I get it.
And as for your “argument” that the viewer contributes to the creation of entertainment, you’re only half right. Entertainment is there because someone believes there is a market for it. If there’s no market, there will be no product. See Arrested Development, Freaks and Geeks and every great TV show that’s ever been canceled.
@ the Idiot
What part of “…public domain” in terms of distribution and availability” don’t you get? I never said they would sign away their intellectual ownership in terms of compensation.
Just because the studio puts up the millions does not mean they should control the intellectual rights of the real autors… Just look at what happened to Brazil for a little lesson on what Hollywood really does to the creative talent process
To KillBill (and the unnamed responder):
KillBill’s point regarding the ownership of rights for the back catalogue movies is correct. In order to secure digital distribution, an owner of rights for a particular motion picture needs to make a distribution agreement with the distributor. When ownership of “The African Queen” has changed hands so many times since its original release (not to mention how many parties produced it and divided the distribution rights for various outlets known at the time to begin with), it is practically impossible to figure out who has the right to sell it for digital distribution in the US (or any other foreign market, for that matter). The initial distribution deals are made when producers who put the money into a movie agree on who will get what part of the proceeds (One gets theatrical box office from the US; the other worldwide theatrical; third gets it from the HBO release; fourth from DVD rentals…), so when that agreement was made before some specific new media came to existence, there ARE no definitions who would own and have the rights for that distribution. Therefore, all original producers need to be tracked down, their subsequent legal successors determined, etc. In case of some movies, it’s just such a colossal hassle that it isn’t even worth it, since no one single entity would stand to profit all that much from such a deal (especially if they have to split up those profits with four or five other entities).
As for a “product” becoming public domain, I think you don’t quite understand what movies are. Their primary purpose is to make profit to people (or legal entities) who invested money in them. The only way they can make profit is to charge for the distribution (Theatrical, DVD/Video, Rental, Cable/TV, digital download, etc). Obviously, public domain would prevent them from receiving any return on their profit.
One of the most blatant examples of this ancient model comes from Disney. Remember how they used to release VHS tapes of their old classics only every 7 years? Back before the internet, it was a decent (if not stupid) supply/demand model. But now it serves no purpose at all. Disney’s Aladdin DVD is currently at this status at Amazon.com: “This item has been discontinued by the manufacturer.” Yet there are 137 copies available from resellers. And they are plentiful on eBay too. The point is, Disney could be making income NOW be selling new copies. But instead they turn people to resellers or piracy. It’s just stupid.
Another thought; difference between a recording artist (signed with a record label) producing a music CD and a screen artist (director, actor, writer, set designer, costume designer, SFX designer, cinematographer, etc, etc, etc) working on a motion picture. Oftentimes, recording artists are just a few (or indeed, only one) working on a CD release. One composer, one lyricist, one arranger, a few performers. It is fairly easy and straightforward to do the math and figure who contributed what percentage of a final release. Based on that math, the authors end up receiving residual income (royalties) from the sale and public performances of that CD release.
In the movies, the number of authors sometimes approaches 100+ (not counting the performers). In general, this is one of the main reasons why Beyonce doesn’t get $20 million to record one single CD album, and Tom Cruise does get $20 million for one single movie. She will continue to receive residual income from that CD, while Tom Cruise got his 20 mil and walked away after doing the last press junket for the initial theatrical release. Obviously, there are some variations in this model (independent movies with very low budget will offer performers percentage of box office gross), but for the most part, that’s the major difference.
And on the main subject at hand, it’s not that Hollywood hasn’t learned anything from the music labels. They had actually learned the wrong thing. After all the bad publicity about file-sharing, prosecuting grandmas and 11-olds and continuous erosion of CD sales (and explosion of iTunes digital sales), they still continue their efforts to undermine iTunes. And that’s the message that Hollywood is learning — don’t make deals with Apple, or you’ll lose your control. Never mind the totally rampant piracy, caused very much by the dearth of content on iTunes. Keep pushing your content anywhere and everywhere but iTunes, or you’ll give all the ability to screw customers away to Apple, and we all know Apple isn’t out there for the sole purpose of screwing their customers. And from Hollywood’s perspective, that’s not right.
KillBill:
What happend to Brazil? I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about.
One more clarification: Public Domain means there are no legal copyright restrictions for use of a work that is in public domain. In other words, when a movie enters public domain, anyone is allowed to show it, distribute it, profit on it, etc. Just like publishers who publish the works of William Shakespeare, or Ludwig Van Beethoven, making profit without compensating Shakespeare’s (or Beethoven’s) estate (since their work entered public domain several centuries ago).
It would be by law impossible for the owners of the original creative rights to collect any income from a creative work if it were to enter public domain. Movie studios buy out original creators and therefore they are the ones (instead of writers, directors, etc) who own creative rights, and therefore are entitled to residual revenue from showing and distribution. That is why a composer can make much more money from a studio writing a score for a movie then he would from a music label writing songs and releasing a CD. Label wouldn’t really pay him anything upfront, but would let him keep his rights to royalties; movie studio, on the other hand, would give him a fat cheque, but would buy out his creative rights with that cheque. Any subsequent royalties would go to the studio.
I was not suggesting that it become public domain in the strict sense… that was why I said in terms of distribution. Just payment for intellectual authorship is a tough nut, but I don’t think investors/speculators should have significant control over distribution once it has been made public. It certainly should not be for perpetuity.
That one can restrict supply to jack-up price on anything—be it food or cultural works— is criminal.
It is not about exercising authorship rights, it is about controlling who can see the product by pricing—censorship by marketplace. The deformed Hollywood model of cultural production excludes more than it includes, both in what gets made and what and how it gets distributed.
What I object to is that the with current model some “owners” extract essentially usurious prices/terms for access to that product. The 99c model in some ways says come all ye offerers of cultural goods and be judged by the content, not by the consumption rate deformed by the demand/pricing/availability mix.
That the current distribution model(s) can lock away products (exclusivity) is problematic in that it denies others access to newly shared cultural notions. The African Queen is now more than just the product of A thru Z in that it entered and has become a not insignificant part of common culture. In times past literacy was an effective mechanism of control, only those who could read could gain access… and of course content here is knowledge. When one releases a product to the public it also bears some responsibility to the greater good.
After all we are all standing on the shoulders of others…
By the way, I do understand what movies are, I just don’t equate Hollywood notions of what movies are with it
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
On Brazil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(film)
Or see the Criterion release of Brazil…
I’m more worried about Apple’s response to Netflix. They have got a good distribution system going and for a subscription fee you can watch many films instantly. My new Blu-Ray player has Netflix built in. Both that and the Mac/PC version work well.
If Netflix are making money on this then it could seriously dampen Apple’s chance in the market. Especially since the distributors seem hell bent on slowing Apple down.
KillBill,
Got it now. I remember when the movie was released, but can’t say which version I saw (it was in Belgrade, Serbia; probably the 131-minute cut).
I have to say, Brazil clearly exemplifies the difference between a studio picture and an independent picture. When studio provides the money (oftentimes tens of millions of dollars) for your movie, you are expected to give up great parts of artistic control over that movie. Studio put up money so that they can make money. Just like in a small rock band, the most permanent member is not the best musician, but the one with a van. The one that calls the shots when any artistic product is made is the one who puts up the money for the product. It will always be like that and lucky ones (such as Spielberg) have struggled long enough to make it to the point not to have to compromise their artistic vision.
Unfortunately, Terri Gilliam wasn’t quite there when he did Brazil.
Gilliam did not have the “means to control production” is an example of the root problem.
The enormous waste in lost talent and lost perspectives (read socio-political) that the “system” engenders to produce a movie or just one auteur (i.e., Kubrick/Ford or what we accept as the cingular point of creativity) is not exactly just. It is hard to envision what may have been when the talent pool is reduced to the hollywood factory and it’s marketing machine.
There are just too many bodies littering that road to not realize something is wrong. That line from Californication says it succinctly:
“Space may be the final frontier
But it’s made in a Hollywood basement”
Accepting the Faustian bargain that is Hollywood, Tin Pan Alley… or any other institutionalized form of payola does not make it morally valid. That the contested nature of cultural production is masked, ignored, censored or subsumed by economic interests does not make it any less real.
Its called hegemony
Actually in someways the factory analogy is a little off… when it is more like a Holllywood version of the Wall Street derivative
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Cheers for the engaging discussion Predrag!
KillBill:
It seems that we may have co-opted the thread for our own exchanges; well, so be it.
Your views seem very gloomy, but judging by the direction of current commercial creative output (coming out of Hollywood, or elsewhere), it’s fairly clear. The proliferation of reality TV (“Screw the writers! We can put on shows without them!”) shows that they’re well on that path. Bravo TV is probably the best example: 10 years ago, it was a premium channel with best quality of creative content. Today, it’s all-reality, all the time.
I believe there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, though. The technological advancements have brought us to a point where a few thousand US dollars can get you an excellent high-definition kit. With open-source software (such as Celtx), you can write a script and get it ready for production. With very little spending on gear, very reasonable output quality can be produced, lowering the barriers of entry to pretty much everyone. Auteurs everywhere no longer need studios or benevolent supporters. And it actually shows. There is a proliferation of independent cinema on the scale that never existed before. Obviously, large percentage of that work is of rather poor quality (artistically and/or otherwise). However, there are enough really valuable items that confirm that studios don’t necessarilly dictate what audiences can watch.
Who knows; with the attitude as described in the original article here, big Hollywood may end up driving themselves right into the ground and allowing creative independents to get a shot at larget audiences.
What a waste of intellect.