Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now
from the big-miscalculation dept
Stewart Baker, the former DHS official whose warnings about how SOPA would wreak havoc on online security were instrumental in convincing many of our elected officials that SOPA and PIPA were half-baked legislative disasters, now has a fascinating writeup for The Hollywood Reporter, trying to explain why the Republican Party turned strongly against SOPA/PIPA. We’ve pointed out a few times, that the different reactions by the Democrats and Republicans to the online protests threaten to cost the Democrats a generation of voters who had previously looked to them as the party that “got” the internet.
Of course, where it gets even more insightful is Baker’s analysis not just of how the Democratic Party appears to have miscalculated badly the reaction to these bills, but how truly and spectacularly Hollywood has failed to understand what happened — in part because Hollywood still thinks that it drives pop culture. The truth, however, as Baker points out, is that the internet drives popular culture these days… and on the internet, Hollywood is a big bully:
The [entertainment] industry still doesn’t understand its adversary. From the start, studios saw the fight over SOPA as a struggle with a bunch of other companies — Google and Internet service providers among them — that were hoping to profit from the Internet travails of the entertainment industry.
That turned out to be wrong. In fact, the industry is fighting what amounts to a new popular culture.
Unlike the old pop culture Hollywood dominated, this one is largely independent of the music, movie and broadcast industries. In fact, people who spend hours online instead of watching TV or going to movies will probably encounter the entertainment industry only when YouTube videos of their kids dancing to Prince or spoofing Star Wars are pulled down by Hollywood’s bots, or when the RIAA threatens to sue them for their college savings, or when digital rights software makes it hard to move their stuff to a new tablet or phone.
To the entertainment industry, these episodes might seem like collateral damage in the fight to stop piracy. To the new pop culture, though, collateral damage and misuse of enforcement tools are everywhere, and they threaten everyone. The content industry has made itself into the villain. Increasingly, it looks like an occupying power, obeyed at gunpoint, despised for its ham-handed excesses and resisted from every dark corner. Unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well.
There’s a lot more in Baker’s article about the political implications of all of this, which are worth thinking about as well, but I wanted to focus on this key point. Last week, at the Midem music industry conference, I was amazed at how many people from the legacy music business believe, 100%, that the reason SOPA/PIPA were stopped was because Google stepped up its lobbying efforts. I can’t even begin to count how many conversations I had with people trying to explain to them that Google only played a small role in what happened, really jumping on the bandwagon pretty late in the game. It was a widespread group of internet users who spoke up, and that really has changed the equation. And Hollywood still can’t seem to wrap its mind around that.
That may be because Hollywood was popular culture for so long. It seems to just assume that this is still the case, when there’s an awful lot of evidence suggesting otherwise. And really, that explains both Hollywood’s confusion in how to deal with all of this, as well as one of the reasons it’s lashing out. When Hollywood no longer drives pop culture, it loses its influence, and as it loses its influence, that’s going to spell trouble for its business model. The biggest threat to Hollywood’s dominance isn’t piracy. It’s that people no longer view Hollywood as the main source of pop culture any more. Art forms often lose their popularity over time. A few years back, we pointed to a quote from Paul Oskar Kristeller that seems worth highlighting again:
There were important periods in cultural history when the novel, instrumental music, or canvas painting did not exist or have any importance. On the other hand, the sonnet and the epic poem, stained glass and mosaic, fresco painting and book illumination, vase painting and tapestry, bas relief and pottery have all been “major” arts at various times and in a way they no longer are now. Gardening has lost its standing as a fine art since the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the moving picture is a good example of how new techniques may lead to modes of artistic expression for which the aestheticians of the eighteenth and nineteenth century had no place in their systems. The branches of the arts all have their rise and decline, and even their birth and death.
Perhaps it’s not piracy that Hollywood is fighting here. Maybe it’s the industry’s own cultural relevance.
Filed Under: hollywood, internet, movies, pipa, politics, pop culture, sopa, stewart baker
Comments on “Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now”
The internet doesn’t drive culture. Rather, it is the screaming kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet”, “i need to pee” and “I want to go to mcdonalds” over and over again. That the car changes direction at some point to resolve or address these issues doesn’t put the internet in the drivers seat.
The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created online. Online is a result of culture and a feedback mechanism, but not a source in and of itself. Take away the outside cultural material created offline, and the online world would be pretty empty.
The vast majority of “memes” created online are take offs on things that came from the offline world. You are not the driver, you are just the noisy passenger to this point.
It might change, but the tail is not yet wagging the whole dog.
Re: Re:
Don’t forget to mention that War Is Peace, too. Someone might believe you.
Re: Re:
You know, there isn’t an online/offline cultural ecosystem. It’s one big cultural ecosystem.
Re: Re:
“It might change, but the tail is not yet wagging the whole dog.”
I have to disagree. Internet meet SOPA … hey SOPA, where did you go?
The “culture” that is being developed is one of openness and sharing. Where liars are put in their place, and evil is swatted down.
Think of us as Robinhood, and you as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Can I get a Ho-aah from the merry men.
Re: Re: Re:
Hoo-rah!
Re: Re: Re:
SOPA is still the tail trying to wag the dog, and being impressed when the hind end moves slightly and temporarily as a result of some furious wagging. The end of SOPA isn’t the end of many of the ideas insider of it, and that is key.
You are not Robinhood… for those most part you are street gangs, thugs, attempting to get whatever you can without regards to the effects on others. Your enforces (anonymous) attempt to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.
In the end, the “internet” is doing one thing solidly: proving that it is still not ready for prime time and a honest life. It’s still caught in the juvenile justice system. Kim dotcom grew up enough and now faces adult justice. The rest of you can’t hide out in the juvi system forever.
You ain’t merry men, just digital thugs.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Digital thugs vs. analog bullies. I wonder which will win?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The irony is that certain elements on the content industry have been getting away with that for over a century, now.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes the internet is still only good for: porn, memes, locats and stealing things. It has contributed nothing else to society and culture. Also people who use the internet regularly are scumbags.
No, don’t worry, you are not out of touch.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I love dealing with idiots like you, because you cannot accept reality.
I didn’t suggest the internet has contributed nothing. Where in fucks name did you get that from?
Dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Thanks for proving his point.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Dude seriously if you can’t use the internet for nothing else thean porn, memes, lolcats and stealing things you can’t fault others for your own limitations on the use of the technology, which allows you to communicate with anyone in the world and find answers to questions for just about anything including medical information, creation of just about anything you ever wanted to know how it is made, you actually can get a knowledge out of the internet, the only limit is your brain capacity, which I am said to inform you is a bit bellow the average apparently.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“In the end, the “internet” is doing one thing solidly: proving that it is still not ready for prime time and a honest life. It’s still caught in the juvenile justice system. Kim dotcom grew up enough and now faces adult justice. The rest of you can’t hide out in the juvi system forever.”
Translation:
If you upset the status quo get out of my yard.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh, the Internet couldn’t exist without me type yeah?
You clueless wretch.
Your crap is just bits on a stream. If you don’t like the water get out, dig your own flow and dam it up any way you like. In short, you’re a guest. Please act accordingly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“…for those most part you are street gangs, thugs, attempting to get whatever you can without regards to the effects on others.”
And how would you characterize an industry trying to pass censorship laws on the rest of the world, without regards to the effects on others?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
how about Terrorists?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that was the case you wouldn’t be wasting your time on here to tell us that.
You are stating what you wish to be the case not what you actually believe. If you honestly believed that you wouldn’t be wasting your time on a Friday afternoon to tell a bunch of digital thugs that they were digital thugs would you?
And linking the entire internet to Anonymous shows exactly how little you know about the culture of the internet. That ignorance is something you can no longer afford to embrace. Fortunately for “our side” your side still desperately clings to that ignorance and is still trying to dismiss all internet based opposition to their foolishness as “hackers and pirates”.
If that was indeed the case, then SOPA would already be law and we would all be queuing up to watch yet another lifeless, soulless, bland sequel to one of the half dozen good ideas that Hollywood managed to have over the past decade.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do know that no monopoly ever endured right?
What makes you think yours will?
The law?
LoL
Re: Re: Re:
Even better — here are cheers representing ALL the U.S. Military branches:
Army – hoo-ahh
Navy & Coast Guard – hoo-yah
Marines – oo-rah
Air Force – wheeee!
Re: Re:
Wow. Have you just arrived from Mars?
The internet is a messy extension of ppl lives. Obviously content created online comes from the offline world. The fact that you don’t see both as complementary parts of the same whole concerning the creative aspect tells much about your ignorance.
Re: Re:
The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created in a vacuum. Culture is a result of the universe and everything and a feedback mechanism, but not a source in and of itself. Take away the universe and everything and the art world would be pretty empty.
The vast majority of “memes” in culture are take offs on things that came from the universe and everything. You are not the driver, you are just the noisy passenger to this point.
It won’t change, that’s the way it was, is, and always will be.
Re: Re:
Mike really should have said that culture is more influenced by the internet that it is by Hollywood. Neither drives culture but both influence it. The internet does now more than Hollywood.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s the people on the internet not the internet per se.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The MAFIAA used to be an adventurer, but then it took an arrow to the knee.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Classic!
Re: A+ Feedback
9.5/10
Spoken with belief, relevant to the article, lacking in most logical fallacies–a gold star for you. Tons of responses!
That’s the best trolling I’ve seen all day.
Re: Re: A+ Feedback
That’s the best trolling I’ve seen all day.
I’m not sure it’s trolling, I think it’s a sincere though misguided rant. Just because you disagree doesn’t make him a troll. Unless you define trolling to include making claims without backing them up, in which case most comments posted everywhere are trolling.
Re: Re: Re: A+ Feedback
Good trolling is indistinguishable from dissent.
It may not make him a troll, but it also doesn’t make him not a troll.
Only a troll will know when he is truly trolling.
See the master troll Bat (R?mi GAILLARD) Uploaded by nqtv on Oct 23, 2009. this one is not subtle, but this other one is.
Spider (R?mi Gaillard) Uploaded by nqtv on Sep 28, 2011.
Re: Re:
“The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created online. Online is a result of culture and a feedback mechanism, but not a source in and of itself. Take away the outside cultural material created offline, and the online world would be pretty empty.”
The same quote again with the words in CAPS showing the replacements.
The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created IN HOLLYWOOD. HOLLYWOOD is a result of culture and a feedback mechanism, but not a source in and of itself. Take away the outside cultural material created OUTSIDE AND BEFORE HOLLYWOOD, and the HOLLYWOOD world would be pretty empty.
Re: Re:
The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created online. Online is a result of culture and a feedback mechanism, but not a source in and of itself. Take away the outside cultural material created offline, and the online world would be pretty empty.
I have some sites you should visit and maybe explore a bit. Try starting with SoundCloud, Bandcamp, DeviantArt, DatPiff, LiveMixtapes, Society6 and Etsy. I think you’ll find there’s a hell of a lot of culture being created and exclusively distributed in the online world.
Re: Re:
>>The internet doesn’t drive culture. Rather, it is the screaming kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet”, “i need to pee” and “I want to go to mcdonalds” over and over again. That the car changes direction at some point to resolve or address these issues doesn’t put the internet in the drivers seat.
Rarely have I seen an industry insider post do such a fantastic job of proving the point that Mike was making in the article.
Re: Re:
short version: You’re wrong.
long version:
The internet drives communication. in being an increasingly large part of how people communicate it does in turn help to drive culture. The screaming kid in the back seat means little to the groups of people who use every means of social media to let the world know about the minutia of their lives.
And while you are correct in that the vast majority of culture isnt created online, online is where the vast majority of people who use the internet for communicative purposes are going to find out about whatever was created.
Yes, you are also right that if you take away the outside cultural materials that the internet would be pretty empty… but thats not the whole deal. you may as well make the statement that if you turn off the sun it’d be dark all the time. yes its factually correct, but it denies the reality that you cant just turn off the sun in the same way your statement denies the reality that you cant simply just take away the culture you are referring to from the internet?
as proof i use the following:
“im pretty sure that if you took all the porn off the internet there would only be one website left & it would be called ‘bring back the porn'”
i just made a pop culture reference on the internet and you now cannot take it away no matter what you try to do….
your comment on memes created online again misses the point that it doesnt really matter where it was created, its the fact that it IS a meme thats important. the internet didnt create memes, it just makes them easier to become memes in an incredibly shorter amount of time then it otherwise would have and in fact some memes could only become memes because of the internet.
you think lolcats would have become the meme its become by sending those pics through the us postal service??
Re: Re:
The vast majority of the “culture” today isn’t created online.
Umm. I think you are using the word “culture” when you should be using “high culture”. High culture is the stuff of art critics.
What is being discussed here is simply culture or an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning.
All those blog entries, cartoons, cat videos, tweets, etc. online ARE culture.
Re: Re: Re:
I remember a course I did just out of high school, filling in the half year before I started university. The course tutor was so hung up on her definition of culture that I actually got kicked out of the course for arguing that I was an internet junkie, and the internet WAS my culture.
I spent the rest of the year on the internet… 😛
Re: The internet doesn't drive culture.
You are Rupert Murdoch and I claim my ?5.
Re: Re:
This is a rather one sided view of the equation and if accurate would not explain the current state of affairs. The internet build upon pre-existing popular culture the same way Disney drew upon old public-domain fairy tales to create their classics.
Deprived of the source material, as many in “old media” would like to do, the internet will simply create new material and modern popular culture will move along.
I would actually like to see that as well. I would love to see the internet abandon the “old media” source material and head off in a completely new direction leaving old media and its products behind. It would actually serve old media right if they do succeed in their ill-considered quest and ultimately do all of the world a service in the bargain.
Currently neither old media or the internet “control” popular culture. Both are currently contributing to it. Which one is dominant will soon be determined since old media seems intent upon making this a confrontation in which there can be no compromise or turning back.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I bet on the internet.
Any takers?
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 10:20am
As a movie-classics lover and visual arts lover in general, it was difficult to move to the Internet- which I’ve been on for a short time. However, after being engaged with Twitter, and finding like-minded people with my same interests, I absolutely love it.
Hollywood is in and of itself- visual in nature. If it will just learn how to “go with the flow”, and graft itself into what is- it will survive. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t love movies or enjoy the stars.
The stars will just need to move over and welcome their newest celebrity- social media. She ain’t going anywhere. The entire world is online. Try and change that.
p.s. I hope Hollywood survives and thrives 🙂
Re: Re:
Ah, the good ol’ argument of “if it wasn’t for Big Content the Internet would die”, otherwise known as “remove Big Content and there Internet would never survive”, in an attempt to justify the antipiracy shilling.
Good luck trying to ban cats.
Re: Re:
My brother is a 14 year old high school freshman, already one of the most popular and gifted athletes at his school, and he has never been to a movie theatre. When he is not training he is online with his friends playing games. The internet will soon eclipse even television.
Re: Re:
You’re missing the point. Content may not necessarily be ‘created’ online, whatever that means, but it is the availability of communication that the internet gives us that is determining what is popular culture and what is not.
Re: Re:
“The internet doesn’t drive culture. Rather, it is the screaming kid in the back seat yelling “are we there yet”, “i need to pee” and “I want to go to mcdonalds” over and over again.”
Isn’t that exactly what Hollywood was? Except it was the parent trying to constantly tell the kid how to behave. “You need to buy this, you need to have this opinion. Don’t talk to other kids, they’re a bad influence. Be influenced by me! ME ME ME!”
The bipartisan problem
Let’s be very honest about the Democratic and Republican party. Essentially, they’re one and the same. They don’t obey their constituents at all, tied to monetary interests from a corrupt system that does not speak for anyone but the ones that have the most money. We should get away from the notion that either party truly represents the people. And that’s the problem of the system itself. While everyone is focusing on the money aspect, I would think that even if people fought against Citizens United and won, there would still be this horrible bribery occurring just out of place of the public view. The thing we would need is more representation in government. More political parties to hurt the idea that one party can have so much power to move legislation. And that’s the problem here. There is no way of punishing a party that moves away from the ideals of the nation. So while the Republicans are viewed as capturing the technology vote, they are also gerrymandering districts all over the US.
So until we actually have electoral reform (not just monetary reform) there will continue to be problems of people being bribed in the public service area.
Re: The bipartisan problem
I agree. Someone tell OWS to go after congress please.
Re: Re: The bipartisan problem
Oh but they are. Search for occupycongress. It’s BOILING in the US. And the Govt is desperately trying to contain them.
Do you really think they are anticipating the return of their troops because they are nice? They have a bigger, stronger enemy to fight: their own people.
Re: Re: Re: The bipartisan problem
All I can say is please just go away to all of the occupy people. The reason is that they just don’t do anything. They have no cohesive message. They are all over the place and so all they do is show that they are nothing. But are protesting for everything.
If the SOPA/PIPA protest showed anything is that you have to pick your battles. Without doing that you are shooting a shotgun at a mountain and hoping that you can cause it to fall.
All I can say to every person that wants to protest anything.
Focus or people will just think FOCUS (Fuck Off Cuz U’re Stupid).
Re: Re: Re:2 The bipartisan problem
I don’t have time to get into it unfortunately so Ill just leave this here; NO.
Re: Re: Re:3 The bipartisan problem
FOCUS
Re: Re: Re:2 The bipartisan problem
All I can say is please just go away to all of the occupy people.
They’ve had a very significant impact on the dialogue in this country. The income inequality, the problems of bad laws (think NAFTA) and the loss of jobs. Essentially, the Occupy movement is the Civil Rights movement part 2. They don’t need to have a huge cohesive movement (though this is still patently false now), just enough to show that there is a VERY large population of the US system that is not represented at all by those in Congress. Consider how the median wealth of those in Congress is so much higher than the ones they govern. Consider how soldiers are mistreated by the system they are sworn to defend. Think about all of the police brutalities, the lack of jobs, the destruction of job creation through corporate lobbying and the many abuses of the crony capitalist system.
While many can say that this copyright issue is an extension of this larger revolt of the current system, I doubt you’ll find a lot of people that can’t at least agree that they’d done a lot more good than harm.
Re: Re: Re:2 The bipartisan problem
We don’t live in a world that deals with one issue at a time, we live in a world where many issues come up at the same time and OWS is the embodiment of those issues.
They may not be organized yet, but this is a process the learning curve will do its job, and people will continue to do the protesting, but they will learn to deal with multiple issues not one.
Re: Re: Re: The bipartisan problem
Yeah troops are necessary for the non-violent movement occupycongress and occupy wallstreet. You are off topic. On topic I will have to disagree with you again.
Hey sorry musicians you made this song in a studio not on a radio so your pop music that you created specifically for radio play just isn’t radio culture.
Please remember what culture means and that it has many meanings.
The internet itself is exactly that CULTURE. It contains culture it, it makes culture and it involves almost everybody in the world.
Re: The bipartisan problem
While you do have a very valid point, I am still registering as a Republican for the first time in my life as a direct result of everything that has happened here.
Yes, but no
The internet drives culture, as the vast majority of culture is shared on the internet.
How could anyone seriously believe that Hollywood drives popular culture considering that most movies nowadays are either remakes or sequels.
How is it possible to drive culture forward when nearly everything you produce is from the past?!
Re: Re:
Legislation.
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, how do I mark that? Insightfully funny? Or Humorously insightful?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I say just hit both buttons and let Mike sort it out.
Re: Re: Re:
want to buy a “sad but true” button
Re: Re:
“How could anyone seriously believe that Hollywood drives popular culture considering that most movies nowadays are either remakes or sequels.”
Yeah, that is why the internet is stagnating and not moving forward. Why we keep doing the same thing over and over wondering why it doesn’t change anything. …
oh wait that’s the entertainment industry, never mind.
Re: Re:
You forgot “re-releases in 3D!”
Coming to a big screen near you…
LOLCATS DA MUSICAL!!!!
Re: Re:
lol i already pirated it on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIiZUJb11A4
Re: Re:
LOLCATS DA MUSICAL!!!!
Too late:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEix6VlLqwU
Hollywood's New Business Model
Oderint dum metuant.
“Let them hate, so long as they fear.”
Re: Hollywood's New Business Model
Then they’ve miscalculated the “fear” bit even worse than they’ve miscalculated the response of individuals.
I don’t watch television. I watch movies through the internet. I don’t watch anything if I can’t press pause. The internet is the new culture.
Movies were a fantastic combination of photography, theatre, books, painting, sculpture, and music – and thanks to editing, its own unique artform. It more closely resembled real life than any other art, which made it the dominant artform of the 20th century.
Well the internet takes all of that and mixes it up even more, and it reflects real life even better, and it’s better at letting us share our ideas. The internet is the new culture.
Take a long view of history. Basically, if something culturally important is going to happen in the next 20 years, it’s probably going to happen on the internet. Movies reached their peak of cultural importance 30 years ago.
Re: Re:
me too, i also watch shows too
they don’t air ducktales anymore (AFAIK), for whatever idiotic reason, but guess what i found in a few keystrokes on youtube?
best of all it was every single episode (+ the movie) with NO COMMERCIALS!!
i was also able to discover the films of Ralph Bakshi, (maker of Fritz the Cat/Wizards/Fire&Ice/Heavy Traffic/American Pop .etc) on youtube, all for free with no commercials, i would have NEVER known about this guy if it was for the usual distribution methods
never forget all of the hours and hours of free entertainment via youtube poops & let’s play game commentaries
internet is superior to television hands down
Re: Re: Re:
forgot to mention, i’ll probably end up buying Ralph’s films & Ducktales episodes, but ATM some of the movies aren’t on DVD yet & i don’t think they have all of the DT episodes on DVD yet aswell
so whoever says that because i find this stuff for free i don’t pay is full of it
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds like the problem is not that you can find it for free, it’s that you CAN’T find it to purchase.
I may not have majored in economics, but I’m pretty sure that if you don’t offer something for sale, people won’t pay for it.
Re: Re: Re:2 I may not have majored in economics, but I'm pretty sure that if you don't offer something for sale, people won't pay for it.
+1 QOTW!
Re: Re: Re:
Funny story. Growing up, we could not receive descent signal quality, so my mother would pay for cable TV. She also worked shift work (as do many) and would program the VCR to record whatever movie was on the Movie Channel for us to watch.
One night she recorded Fritz the Cat, thinking it was a family movie. Now that was entertainment, being 14 years old and discovering this movie (I watched it while my mother was still at work) and called my friends to tell them about it.
Nowadays, Cable sucks, too many damn commercials. Remember the Charlie Brown Christmas Special or How the Grinch Stole Christmas or Frosty and all that? They cut scenes out to fit in more commercials. People already pay $40 – 100/mo for what was supposed to be commercial free TV.
I don’t bother with cable anymore, screw that. I can find it on the Web, uncut, unshortened, and commercial free. Or borrow from the library, or buy if the price is right.
Though if streaming, like say The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on ComedyCentral.ca, I don’t mind the two commercials they play in between the 10 min clips. But not more than that, 1min for 10 min. Regular TV? 1/3 of the hour is commercials!
And Hollywood wonders why people turn to downloading commercial free stuff? Or stream online where there are less commercials?
Hollywood Still Doesn’t Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now
As I was reading this I realized that I disagree. I think Hollywood understands very well.
A lot depends on how you define “the internet”. For a lot of people, when you they hear “the internet” they think of the infrastructure, providers, services of the internet: the Comcasts, the AT&Ts, the Googles, Microsofts, Wikipedias, Facebooks. In that respect, the internet does not drive culture, anymore than a CD or a newspaper drives culture.
Communities drive culture.
It is what is put on the internet, or the CD, or the newspaper that drives cultrue. The old gatekeeper model of the entertainment industry, however, simply allowed them to restrict or divert that natural flow by controlling the tools and outlets communities could use to drive culture. The internet has merely allowed communities to remove that impediment, by providing essentially infinite space and accessibility, and do what they do naturally, build culture.
The battle is not between the legacy industries and the internet to determine who drives culture. It is between the legacy industries and the communities to determine who controls the tool (the internet) that drives culture.
This is why the entertainment industry will never utilize the internet the way it is to its fullest, because it inherently breaks their control and returns it to the community. For them, the internet must be broken, to prevent us from self-determination of culture back to their imposition of what culture should be.
This doesn’t just apply to music or movies either. It also explains why the major media outlets (almost all of which are owned by a small handful – what six? – of companies/individuals) gleefully regurgitate the “facts” from other content industries like the MPAA and RIAA, because they too resent the internet for circumventing their own redirections to drive culture.
Re: For them, the internet must be broken, to prevent us from self-determination of culture back to their imposition of what culture should be.
Hanlon?s Razor applies: ?never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?.
Big Content is not malicious, it?s stupid. Their conspiracies, such as they are, only extend as far as shoring up their collapsing business models?that?s all they care about. If they had a concerted, coherent plan to destroy the Internet and bring the content distribution channels back under their centralized control, then they would appear far more organized and competent than they are. As it is, they come across as floundering and incoherent, with no real idea what?s going on, clinging stubbornly to living in a parallel universe with less and less connection to reality with every passing day.
Medium Shift
People?s lives are, and have always been, the best of pop culture. Hollyweird was just plagiarizing from People?s Experiences. People can bypass HW, as digital tech advances, and more people will be creating their own content for target audiences much like musicians target an audience.
Hollyweird is becoming more and more irrelevant as the Internet becomes the New Medium for telling stories.
I'd be happy to see Hollywood burned to the ground
It’s outlived its usefulness. Better — FAR better — films are being made by people with shoestring budgets and wonderful imaginations. There is no further use (to society) for Hollywood’s self-importance, its excesses, its shitty products, its incredible expenses, its war on culture, its war on the Internet, its war on free speech, its war on anything and everything that doesn’t make money for the already-rich of Hollywood.
“Son, you were mistaken — you are obsolete.”
The 'drag' has changed.
For those that lived in Hollywood, you would understand:
Youtube is the new sunset strip.
Now it just wraps around the entire globe, and the Hollywood sign is a relic.
Hollywood also still doesn’t realize that they’re majorly pissing off their customers.
If you break my favourite thing ever that I use for all my media, that I use to find stuff out for my own interest as well as work and that I use to communicate with both friends and coworkers daily, do you honestly think I won’t mind and I’ll just turn around and buy your shitty DVD for $30?
This is just the result of many people realizing that Hollywood’s product is rarely as entertaining as what can be found online. This is a good thing, as it brings in stronger competition than Hollywood has seen in recent memory.
Lost In Space
Some items that were not brought up were things change!
I love my Sci-Fi, I was a faithful follower of the Scy-Fy channel, but one day it changed, and my Scy-Fy channel no longer shows Sci-Fi, but wrestling.
Why, not sure, but I bet it is about money and market share.
I loved to watch the new and old sci-fi shows, not anymore.
Then one day I typed into this wonderful thing called a browser, “sci-fi tv”, low and behold all the sci-fi shows I love. I can see them whenever I want, limited commercials to no commercial interruptions, on-demand, on-time, whenever I want, to my great joy.
Now I watch all my Sci-Fi on line, not on the Scy-Fy TV channel or their website, as it does not work, and you have to have magic pixie dust to get anything, but no problem, there are tons of resources at my command.
Thank internet!!!
And now, this week a New, but old sci-fi movie, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 3D Re-Release, now we have a Star Wars movie, the worst one, being re-released in 3D, for an average cost of $12.00, to see in 3D, same movie, but in 3D.
Now really, do we need to see this in 3D? Do you need to go out and spend $48.00 for a family of 4 to see this?
Hey, Lucas, why don’t you spend the money on a new sci-fi movie, instead of retreading an old one, and ones by the way that are played in TV marathons for day’s over the year, and on holidays, I have seen it about 40 times this year alone, I keep it on for company!
And you movie goers, don’t see it, send a message, we want new movies, and content, not ones retreaded for the third time, even if the series is one of the greats, even for me a sci-fi lover, has had enough.
I for one will not see it, will not even try to see it on the net, why, it’s the same frackin movie!
Now…move along, nothing to see here!
Re: Lost In Space
Yeah, we’ve been bombarded by ads for that 3D rehash of Phantom Menace for the better part of the past 2 months (that is, since before friggen Christmas), and it’s really the only ad Cartoon Network ‘ere in Aus plays when it airs the CGI Clone Wars TV Show, probably gonna be true until early-mid March once the movie’s hit the cinemas here.
I’d rather spend the $12 (plus snacks and drinks) I’d pay for even the 2D airing (if my cinema will offer it) on getting the DVD of Menace from the bargain bin of BigW once new pressing of the movie are made. I’ve already waited over a decade to get the DVD, so I can wait another year or so for the rehashed movie to be a decent price as I ain’t gonna pay $30 when the DVD of the rehash comes out.
Blank DVD media are less than 50 cents per disc nowadays (hey, I can get a 50-disc spindle for under $25 which includes the store’s profits and shipping to the store from US stocks), so ~$10 per title (or disc in a boxset) is really the best price for selling movies and shows on DVD if they really want to see decent sales early on.
Yes, the occupy movement is significant in that it shows that some of us will leave our snuggies behind to venture out into the cold and say that we care about government now that things are bad. It’s nowhere near as significant or important as the Civil Rights movement, but it’s a start. Keep it up until the next presidential election, and then business-as-usual might actually change in some detectable way.
Overvalued content, and the blandness of modern movies and TV
The REAL crime is that these dorks at the MPAA actually think their “content” has any value whatsoever! When was the last time you saw a movie with as much impact as “Back to the Future” or “E.T.” or “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? Heck, when was the last time you saw a movie that wasn’t a reboot?!?! Hollywood has basically stopped trying even to present the illusion that they are attempting to provide quality entertainment and instead are pumping out movies that are instantly forgettable, and in the end, doomed to obscurity.
Now, turn on your cable TV (those of you left who still have it!), scroll through the 500+ channels RIGHT NOW and see if there is ANYTHING worth watching! No? Big surprise, right?
The real fear in Hollywood is that with sites like YouTube and others, people are no longer just sitting back and consuming content…they are CREATING content! And they dont control this content! THIS is the reason these sites are so often demonized by the MPAA and RIAA! They DONT WANT us to take their precious monopoly away from them!
I am trying to ween myself away from TV and movies completely, and I urge each and every one of you to do the same! Cut cable. Quit watching network TV. Quit watching movies (MPAA movies that is, indies are still ok and usually better written anyway!). Hit the MPAA and RIAA where it hurts…in the pocketbook!
If things change, and they start backing down from their RIDICULOUS agenda that makes all consumers criminals, AND start producing worthwhile entertainment, then MAYBE we can go back to consuming their product…but for now, just put the remote down and go live your own life…or at the very least, go read a book!
Re: Overvalued content, and the blandness of modern movies and TV
“The REAL crime is that these dorks at the MPAA actually think their “content” has any value whatsoever!”
The REAL crime here is people who do not seem to realize what is the most pirated and most in demand content around. Value is defined by what people want, and clearly, people want it.
Re: Re: Overvalued content, and the blandness of modern movies and TV
Yep LoLCats are the most pirated content in the world today I agree.
Re: Overvalued content, and the blandness of modern movies and TV
The last time was 2010, when Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was released. But that movie was an oasis in the desert that is Hollywood.
“No?” Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ll tell you what TV shows I enjoy watching, off the top of my head
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert R?port
Beavis & Butt-head
Futurama
Haven (but only because I know Eric Balfour, an actor in the show, personally. Other than that, the show sucks, but started getting good around the end of the second season when the whole d?nouement happened)
some left-leaning political programming, like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (MSNBC offers DRM-free downloads of their entire shows as podcasts in the iTunes store, FYI) and The Young Turks on Current
So that’s quite a bit.
Is Hollywood and TV a vast wasteland? I do agree with that. However, even deserts have oases.
You have a choice to make.
* Hollywood, and commercial tv/music
or
* the Free Internet
You choose. If you are giving money to the MPAA, RIAA, and their kind, you are funding the destruction of the internet.
Re: Re:
you might have to choose, but everyone else can have it all, we can have TV/music and the internet.
And none of them have EVER been free, you pay for it all if you use it or not.
And only a fucking total moron would believe otherwise !!
Not only do you PAY for it, you pay for it multiple times, and you pay for it regardless of if you use it or not.
All these things, like masnicks internet is paid for by ADVERTISING, everyone pays for advertising, regardless of if you purchase that product, or view the advertising, either way you still pay..
Looking at the top of my this web page is a nice add for ANZ bank, ANZ payed google money for that add, the ‘product’ ANZ Bank sells (banking services) costs more, because ANZ Bank have to pay Google money for the add, and Google has to pay Masnick some money for the add.
You are paying for that Ad, and the cost of banking is higher because banks (and every business) has to spend a certain amount of money (profit) on advertising.
Everything you buy, has an advertising cost, that means EVERYTHING has an extra cost YOU PAY for the promotion of that product.
Even if you do not buy that product, someone else has, and that means they require more money. so YOU pay….
As well you pay for the infrastructure, you pay for the computer, the phone line, the ISP, the TV set the radio, your house, your car, and all these things are more expensive due to the cost of advertising.
The opposite to “free” is to charge EVERYONE, even if you do not use that thing.. you only think it is free because well because you must be stupid !!!
Or you have been getting into the Masnick coolaid again !
How can something be free when every person on the planet have to pay for it ?????
Re: Re: Re:
So you are saying that piracy causes no financial harm?
I agree with that message.
Re: Re: Re:
I think you’re confusing “free” as in “free software” with “free” as in “free beer. The OP was talking about “free” as in “free software”, but you misinterpreted it as “free” as in “free beer”. They are not the same thing. Look here to find out the difference.
Re: Re:
you do not have a choice, you pay regardless.
Your very presence on this web site confirms YOU ALLREADY PAY !!!!!!!
good luck trying to convince anyone with a brain otherwise…
First it was Jim Crow laws, now it’s SOPA/PIPA, thank god for republicans.
Re: Re:
great, we now have to rely on God and the Republicans to save the world of “Pop Culture” HAHA..
What has your republican God done for you recently ?
“In the beginning God said, “”LET THERE BE REPUBLICANS”” and behold, what he created was very good..
from a country with zero cultural heratage.
Popular culture is often viewed as being trivial and dumbed-down in order to find consensual acceptance throughout the mainstream. As a result, it comes under heavy criticism from various non-mainstream sources (most notably religious groups and countercultural groups) which deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist, and corrupted.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture
The term began to assume the meaning of a culture of the lower classes separate from (and sometimes opposed to) “true education” towards the end of the century,[13]
The current meaning of the term, culture for mass consumption, especially originating in the United States,
Yes, a DUMBED DOWN form of culture especially originating in the US..
The US really has no culture, and Masnick has little or no understanding of what it even means !!!
Sure ‘pop culture’ might be important, if you spend your entire life in your mum’s basement, you might end up believing that the “net” is all there is.
Do you guys EVER go out ? do you ever wonder what the REAL World is like ?
Culture is something that relates to PEOPLE not THINGS, culture influences things, things do not really influence culture.
In other words, Masnick has got it completely wrong AGAIN !!!!
D
Re: from a country with zero cultural heratage.
Darryl, seek help.
Re: from a country with zero cultural heratage.
And yet, noone every agrees with Daryl.
kill MPAA/RIAA
defund them, let hollywood die. something else will rise in its place to entertain us at the price we want. (free)
Whitehouse Petition
Short on sigs for exposure: Make more transparent and inclusive the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty negotiations
Found in BoingBoing Article Comments: http://bit.ly/xxLymr
Petition Address: http://bit.ly/xarv5J
Text:
“The USTR needs to be more transparent and inclusive in the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. The public should be informed by regular drafts of language released and open for comment. Members of Technological and on line civil rights groups should be invited to the negotiations.”
This gives Hollywood too much credit
As if they are well-meaning but they just don’t understand. They do understand and they are not well-meaning. RIAA/MPAA types are largely quite aware that there is a popular movement against their interest: they just don’t want to admit it, especially when talking to their political monkeydogs. So what do you do when you don’t want to admit your enemy’s far superior mobilisation? You send out propaganda against the dirtiest, most demonisable possible member of the enemy camp, and this time (and probably many times to come), that was Google.
Don’t worry though: everyone who isn’t a copyright industry toady can see perfectly well that this is a false picture they are pushing.
IT IS NOT GOOGLE
“Last week, at the Midem music industry conference, I was amazed at how many people from the legacy music business believe, 100%, that the reason SOPA/PIPA were stopped was because Google stepped up its lobbying efforts.”
It is not just the Super Pacs that do not understand this. Just before I read this, I posted my blog. In it is yet another form letter from Senator Franken(d-mn) and my response. Clearly, Senator Frankin has drank the same Kool Aid. It is becoming obvious that nothing other than a full scale replacement of our elected representatives will eliminate this foolishness.
kill MPAA/RIAA
Lol…no it won’t. People deserve to get paid fairly for their work. Nobody will produce something like a AAA video game or blockbuster film for free, especially since these things usually take a lot of money to make.
u R completly wrong.
Wrong. Internet does drive popular culture.
Newpaper (text) > radio (audio) > TV (visual) > Internet (all)
Everything is gonna merge on the internet. Internet is driving society. It doesn’t matter who created culture; that is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is where its leading. Internet has finally made it possible for everyone to share everything to almost everyone.
Of course internet is not leading culture; tell that to Chinese firewall. Or the other oppressive nations seeking to limit the internet.
kill MPAA/RIAA
Well then, I guess the solution is to remove money as a barrier to creation. It must be possible since there are games out there made by people in their spare time, for free, that are considered just as good as the AAA titles.
from a country with zero cultural heratage.
DR;ID
kill MPAA/RIAA
People deserve to get paid fairly for their work.
Yes, they absolutely do.
Fortunately, “free to the consumer” does not necessarily mean that artists don’t get paid. For example, over-the-air radio and TV were able to pay actors and musicians without charging the public.
Unfortunately, the MPAA and RIAA now consider that business model to be piracy.
kill MPAA/RIAA
And those games (and other content as well) you talk about have RIDICULOUS turn over times. But money would still be a barrier to creation, as game dev software isn’t exactly cheap. Some person an hour or two a day after school/work can not dream of competing with an actual game studio who is capable of making a game in a year or two. I’ve played many of the “one man production” games, and while they are impressive considering the development situations, they certainly aren’t any AAA game. Just because YOU think people shouldn’t be able to make money in the development of entertainment doesn’t mean it should actually happen.
kill MPAA/RIAA
“Fortunately, “free to the consumer” does not necessarily mean that artists don’t get paid. For example, over-the-air radio and TV were able to pay actors and musicians without charging the public.”
Yes, they were able to do that. Because people still had the patience to watch ads, which meant ad companies had a reason to buy a lot of advertising. But now, people would rather pirate a TV show than watch it on legit sites that make them watch 2 stinking 10 second ads. I honestly can’t see people watching/clicking enough ads to earn an artist like $5 which would pay for an album. I (and I’m sure quite a few people on this site) would have no problem doing so if it meant supporting our favorite entertainers, but I’m guessing most people don’t want to actually put that kind of effort in.
It would also help if the advertisers and other “free to consumer” services like spotify actually paid the artist a fair amount of money…most of the time (especially with spotify) an artist might be lucky to earn enough to buy a bottle of Coke. If free for the consumer is the future with the core entertainment product, (which I as a musician don’t have a problem with tbh!) big tech companies that will end up running these services NEED to pay a fair price for their content. No more of this 0.00004 per play bullshit. Grocery stores don’t get to pay 0.00004 per item to stock their shelves with products, so neither should tech companies.
Re:
And when your kid in the backseat says “I feel sick” or “I need to pee” do you just tell them to ‘hang on another 200 miles for their own good’? Or even 20?
Kids may not drive the car, but they are still passengers with valid needs, including safety, comfort and entertainment. Ignore them at your peril… 🙂
kill MPAA/RIAA
But now, people would rather pirate a TV show than watch it on legit sites that make them watch 2 stinking 10 second ads.
Plenty of people flock to Hulu. In fact, nobody minds the ads, they mind that they have to wait anywhere from a week to a month to watch shows.
It would also help if the advertisers and other “free to consumer” services like spotify actually paid the artist a fair amount of money…
You do realize that Spotify’s royalties are greater than terrestrial radio’s, right?
Business Matters: Why Spotify Royalties Are Greater Than Radio Royalties
It’s not the tech companies that aren’t paying a fair price for their content. Traditional media companies treat artists far, far worse than tech companies ever could. That’s because traditional media companies’ only business model is based upon ripping off artists. If they didn’t make ten to twenty times what you do from your art, they’d be out of business. Tech companies in general have other (better) revenue streams.
Re:
I just spent the morning looking for a half dozen albums from the 1970s. Turns out they aren’t available in my country – the United States – so my only option is pirating.
And here I was ready to spend money.
Re:
I wonder if any “offline” content creators understood this one…
kill MPAA/RIAA
“Plenty of people flock to Hulu. In fact, nobody minds the ads, they mind that they have to wait anywhere from a week to a month to watch shows.”
Which is the fault of the tv/movie studios for staggered releasing with THEIR tv channel getting the first airing.
“You do realize that Spotify’s royalties are greater than terrestrial radio’s, right?
Business Matters: Why Spotify Royalties Are Greater Than Radio Royalties”
That article is kind of bs since those figures are only guesses. This (http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/02/spotifys-royalty-rate-grew-only-0001-for-indie-artists-in-2011.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FDqMf+%28hypebot%29) article shows actual figures from someone’s tunecore dashboard. 0.005 per stream…that is a slave wage amount of money. And even THAT number isn’t for every artist…it’s based on ad revenue and # of plays. Which means if you are an indie act who is starting, have fun buying a small soda with the few bucks you MIGHT earn. If this is your idea of “paying a fair price,” I’d challenge you to try and get enough plays to generate enough revenue to fund future creations. (fyi: 500k plays gets you $2500 for the month…good luck living on THAT unless you are in the middle of nowhere!) Because when I see tech companies pulling this shit on their streaming services, all I see is new majors that exist only to fuck over the artist while the company rolls over in mounds of cash…not some “innovators” who are here to pay the artist a fair price. If this whole “free to the user” is really the future, services like spotify either need to pay an actual fair amount to EVERY artist on their service, or switch to a bandcamp like system that actually encourages supporting artists instead of ripping them off.
kill MPAA/RIAA
First of all, when did I say that I think people shouldn’t be able to make money making games? I never said that, you just assumed I did. I said that it can be done without a investors’ funding. Don’t put words in my mouth.
“But money would still be a barrier to creation, as game dev software isn’t exactly cheap.”
You don’t know much about game development to make that kind of claim. There is Unity3D, a free and well-respected game engine, the Unreal Development Kit, which is also free, and the Crytek Engine 3(non-commercial only) too. The same engines that are used in the industry in AAA and indie studios. There are plenty of free tools to create 3D and 2D art assets. There are also free software tools for audio. Sure, 3DS Max and Maya are expensive, but they aren’t the only tools out there and it’s not impossible to make games without them. What goes into a AAA title isn’t budget and expensive tools, it’s talent and skill. It may be easier with lots of money, but it’s not mandatory. It’s ignorant to assume that you can’t do it without the tools they use.
Counter-strike was a non-commercial game created by a bunch of people in their spare time. They used inexpensive tools to create it, yet Valve hired the people behind it and made it one of their titles. Counter-Strike is still widely played by a great number of people, a game made by amateurs without the benefit of expensive industry-standard tools. I’d say that’s proof positive that it can be done. AAA is about talent, not budget.
kill MPAA/RIAA
That article is kind of bs since those figures are only guesses.
The Spotify payouts are not guesses; the guesses are for terrestrial radio – something that Billboard, the voice of the industry for decades, should be knowledgeable about.
And this is an important point to consider. Terrestrial radio has never paid out big money either, and it was furthermore restricted to major labels. So, whatever pittance an indie artist is making through Spotify, it is exactly one pittance more than they would have been able to make otherwise.
Incidentally, this series of posts tells a different story about Spotify:
http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm
…But whatever your problem with a single Internet music service, the plain fact is that many other “free to the user” services (e.g. YouTube) have been instrumental in helping indie artists get paid, something the traditional industry has never done.
kill MPAA/RIAA
“First of all, when did I say that I think people shouldn’t be able to make money making games? I never said that, you just assumed I did. I said that it can be done without a investors’ funding.”
Because most people totally have the few grand or even 10k+ just lying around that it would take to hire good freelancers to release your game in a decent time frame. Talent and skill don’t come cheap, and someone shouldn’t feel entitled to get around that fact just because their budget isn’t big enough. And trust me, there are PLENTY of those assholes around! No need for more.
“I’d say that’s proof positive that it can be done.”
That’s not a good example though; those people just made a game mod for fun and happened to get it turned into a game. I’m wondering if HUGE franchises like halo or something
that require so many people to be able to produce, would SERIOUSLY be able to pay *all* of their team members fair compensation without having any investors helping them out, AND releasing in an acceptable time period that fans are willing to wait. If a group does not have that funding in place, I do not see how it would happen. How would they expect to pay their people without already having funds set aside? Would you work on a project that didn’t have it’s funding in place? I don’t know too many people that would work for someone who didn’t even have the funds to pay them. Bills and living expenses don’t halt because you need a year or two for developing a game. And I don’t see a brand new game series from a new dev getting showered with donations with kickstarter/gofundme like platforms to cover people’s living expenses until the game comes out.
kill MPAA/RIAA
“So, whatever pittance an indie artist is making through Spotify, it is exactly one pittance more than they would have been able to make otherwise.”
It SHOULDN’T be a pittance though. Stores don’t get to pay manufacturers a pittance to stock their shelves just because it’s “free exposure” for their products, so streaming services shouldn’t be allowed to either since they are effectively stocking their “digital shelves” and allowing their customers to use them. ESPECIALLY since they also make even more money off ads and paid subscriptions.
“Incidentally, this series of posts tells a different story about Spotify:
http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm“
That isn’t exactly an unbiased site. It only shows one artist’s data. Not to mention that spotidj MAY say that they aren’t a spotify fanboy, but they love to go on music tech/musician’s websites to try and convince everyone that getting more money up front with things like itunes or bandcamp isn’t better than a spotify pittance. Free platforms only encourage the “entertainment should be 100% free” la la land mindset, which is why I hope more bandcamp like models come around. People can still listen to the full tracks on bandcamp, but are actually encouraged to buy the artist’s products instead of ignoring the one ad that comes every 5 plays on spotify.
“But whatever your problem with a single Internet music service, the plain fact is that many other “free to the user” services (e.g. YouTube) have been instrumental in helping indie artists get paid, something the traditional industry has never done.”
Of course I agree the “old guys” didn’t do crap for indies. (and even their own “big” artists too!) That doesn’t mean indies and other artists should be subjected to earning a pittance. Because everyone on this site is seriously DREAMING if they actually think the streaming services offered by tech companies AREN’T gonna become the new record label douchebags once the majors die off. What we really need are more platforms that actually give more of the profit to artists instead of “lol here’s a bit of the ad money.”
Another thing to consider; a free sale may be the easiest to get. But it is also the hardest to turn into a paid sale. After all, why would most people feel inclined to support a creator? Mega fans would definitely buy things like shirts and posters to support their favorite entertainers, but most people just want the core product. And they have no reason to buy it if they get it for free. Although perhaps experimenting with something like having to watch/click a certain amount of ads on a non-blockable page in order to download things like albums might work. Still free to the user, only difference is the artist actually gets paid a good amount.
Re:
Have you read “Harry Potter: The Methods of Rationality”? It’s fan-fic (amateur fiction based on popular copyrighted book). It’s great, many people consider it better, than original. It gathered quite a following, and it’s written by one scientist in his spare time. It’s published free of charge in the web, no distributors, marketing, no middle-man. People already translated it to many languages, made illustrations, audio-books. It’s quite long (probably +- 200-300 printed pages, I don’t know, I hadn’t printed it), and not finished yet. It was read more times, than most regular books is.
Internet produced content has 90% of shit, like everything else. And there’s much more content on the internet, than anywhere else, so there’s tons and tons of shit. But there’s also tons of good content, content that could be sold by distributors for big millions of $. But people prefer to cut out the middle man. Authors either produce this content for free, as a hobby (many great writers did the same with their best books), or earn money from ads, t-shirts, or just being a internet celebrity.
You, sir, do not understand, how big the change will be, when current generation will take over.
kill MPAA/RIAA
Right, because in order for it to work, you must have an extremely wealthy contributor with gobs of cash. I’m sure there’s no way to get a few hundred or a few thousand people to chip in $10-$100, with the right incentives, to fund the production of a game. /sarc
That just goes to show that you assume the only way it can be done is if one or two very wealthy people drop a truck load of cash on a studio to make a game instead of setting up a crowdfunding campaign.
I also see a lot of problems, but no effort whatsoever put into finding ways around those issues. You just have a “it can’t be done” attitude. You imply that only copyright protected, publisher funded games will ever reach what is considered to be AAA. That’s just defeatist thinking. Copyright is going to fail against the progress of technology. It’s best to start looking into other ways to fund projects.
Counter-Strike is not a good example? That’s exactly what constitutes a good example. They did it with minimal funding, in their spare time, and without the benefit of industry tools. That pretty much makes it clear that it can be done and there are even better tools available now for the independent developer than there were in 1999.
“And I don’t see a brand new game series from a new dev getting showered with donations with kickstarter/gofundme like platforms to cover people’s living expenses until the game comes out.”
Correlation is not equal to causation. You don’t see major games from those sources because a) there are still lots of publishers investing in game developers and b) because there hasn’t been a critical mass of public awareness to encourage people to exploit the opportunity. It’s not happening because crowdfunding for all intents and purposes is still fairly new and nobody has created a test-case scenario to exhibit its viability.
kill MPAA/RIAA
“Right, because in order for it to work, you must have an extremely wealthy contributor with gobs of cash”
Not exactly what I said. Most gamers wouldn’t be willing to invest in a game unless there was some kind of demo or gameplay video. Because it really IS the only way to see what you are getting. I know I wouldn’t donate through a crowdfunding platform for a game if I could not even have any proof to see if the people are actually serious about going through with developing it.
“You imply that only copyright protected, publisher funded games will ever reach what is considered to be AAA.”
Um…no. What I DID say was that unless a project has proper funding in place, there is a good chance they won’t be able to follow through with development. Good freelancers don’t work for free after all.
“Copyright is going to fail against the progress of technology. It’s best to start looking into other ways to fund projects.”
Implying that someone WOULDN’T support a great project that happens to have no copyright? Either way, I think it’s funny people feel entitled to illegally get things for free just because they can.
“Counter-Strike is not a good example? That’s exactly what constitutes a good example.”
Not really. It was only a game mod, not a full-fledged game on it’s own in the beginning. If someone tried to make a full length video game in only an hour of spare time a day, they’d be pretty hard pressed to get it out in a good timeframe. And this isn’t just for video games; I recall an indie anime series (it’s online if you want to check it out btw) called Revelation. It took them 6 months to produce ONE episode, just because they only had 2 or 3 hours a day to work on it.
“because there hasn’t been a critical mass of public awareness to encourage people to exploit the opportunity. It’s not happening because crowdfunding for all intents and purposes is still fairly new and nobody has created a test-case scenario to exhibit its viability.”
Someone creating that test would require a huge risk on their part. Which is probably why it hasn’t been done yet…but I would like to see how it works out. Crowd sourcing for real life projects works since there is the psychological barrier of looking cheap if you don’t give a good amount of money, but that barrier is gone in the internet…which basically relies on the honor rule hoping people pay a fair amount.