MediaLibMan’s Techdirt Profile

medialibman

About MediaLibMan




MediaLibMan’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:42pm

    Re: The definition of irony

    If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
    I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
    PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.

  • Jan 7th, 2010 @ 10:42pm

    Re: The definition of irony

    If you would turn of Ad Blocker for one moment (I did inspired by this conversation) you would see McDonalds on the top right hand corner advertising a new tortilla wrap.
    I have to cop to not being up on the ad network programming, so perhaps it's related to our conversation. Just found it a bit ironic.
    PS: I'm not a McD's plant, in fact their food makes me ill.

  • Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 8:24pm

    MPAA is not concerned about Indie..

    I can tell you as an academic media librarian who regularly has conversations with independent film makers and educational film makers that the studios are not concerned with protecting their rights. Instead, the "big 5" studios - who are all a part of major media conglomerates - have witnessed how their peer organizations in other content industries have fallen victim to ineffective innovation and are trying to hold on for dear life until they can work a sustainable business model (it's hard to compete with free).

    In the meantime, they will continue to push against consumerist-centered innovation (see RealDVD & Redbox/Netflix), misinformation campaigns and exploiting DMCA take-down notices about legal fair use applications (not every YouTube video with commercial content is necessarily breaking the law), and push for legislative-circumventing international treaties (thanks ACTA).

    In due time (sooner than you think), they will come up with a business model. In fact, I am betting within 2 years or less, you will start to see an announcement to the effect:

    "As a Comcast/Time Warner subscriber, you now have access to all of the Warner Bros (fill in the blank studio) back movie catalog freely streamed digital online, to your non-Apple portable or to your TV in amazing HD 1080i. For an extra $9.95 a month ("the movie bundle"), you can get all the new releases*, playable once a month for 24 hours." Just wait, it won't only be movies. You will also be able to get the news bundle (access to Wall Street Journal), the music bundle (access to Taylor Swift - Walt Disney), even the social media bundle (access to cats playing the piano - woot, only 4.95!).

    Once they get a monthly subscription out of people they will drop the copyright shenanigans (lobbyists are expensive after all), just in time for ACTA to take effect! But by then fair use would have withered anyways, and the average user won't care because they won't be too inconvenienced.

    Oh, yea and concern for the Indie movie maker, prey tell where the studios will be for them then. Simple, where they are now - nowhere.

  • Nov 23rd, 2009 @ 7:12pm

    You're missing the point..

    I think you are all missing the point. Rupert's proper contention is that folks who are driven to News Corps. properties from Google (and all non economic-niche external sources really) are simply not worth the money. They typically do not stay on the site for very long (maybe an article), they are not the type that pay for subscriptions, and they are likely more diverse then the narrow demographics advertisers seek (think Fox News). Rupert does not care if "information wants to be free" or about CPM's. In fact, he would just assume the "parasites" went away.

    He would rather run a lean profitable operation (with less reporters) - digital or print - where a few really loyal folks pay for the content, and advertisers know essentially who they are marketing to. Marketers are willing to pay a premium for the Fox News crowd, or hell even the very different Fox broadcast channel crowd, just as long as they are loyal (think NASCAR). Rupert views himself as a prophet that will lead the news industry into salvation, or at least off life-support.

    Now, I personally do not think it is a good strategy long-term. For starters, while niche information like WSJ works because people use the info. to make money, I am not certain the same will hold true for general news. I also don't know that the demographics that work in the above instances (e.g., white, middle-class, conservative; older for Fox News and young-liberal for Fox channel) translate to the online environment.

    I think Rupert would be better served by providing his information for free, and innovating with a series of value-added services, such as live-discussions with NASCAR champ, Jimmy Johnson or widgets to search for hard-to-get-to public information that bring better context to stories. Then again, Mr. Murdoch has never been about facts, so even if he stuck to some exclusive entertainment content he might be able to get the following. Speaking of entertainment (sit-com really), I wonder if Glenn Beck would support a forum on the New York Post?