With GTA V, Rockstar had a game launch day that was apparently unprecedented in the history of entertainment. They have connected with fans in a substantial way over many years and many titles. Some may say that Rockstar can afford to be so magnanimous about online cash packs because they made so much money on the game already. But I believe their overall attitude is what drives their success, not any one particular action.
It is bad for sure, but there may be some statements at odds here:
"No doubt, many people might think phone companies should provide this kind of information, provided a properly executed court warrant is presented."
The article said:
"Wireless carriers are told they must be ready to hand over such data should police or intelligence agencies compel the release of the information through judicially authorized warrants."
I think we're a tiny bit better off in Canada because the warrants are not being authorized by a secret court. Of course, I may be naive.
As has been stated, Netflix is just an example, an illustration of how more convenience and better access can reduce piracy.
But in Canada, where Netflix is actually available, the selection is so hobbled by regional restrictions that, for me, it wasn't even worth subscribing. The selection was terrible about one year ago when I tried it; the service and selection may have improved since then, but I haven't heard such a thing.
Also, rumors are that the ISPs were de-prioritizing Netflix traffic. As the big ISPs in Canada are both content producers and traditional broadcasters/cablecasters, they view Netflix as a competitor.
So I'd love to see the numbers for Canada, but my guess is that Netflix might show up as a counter-example. Thus, such a study would be held up to "disprove" the US experience when in fact it bolsters the underlying point: better access and convenience really do combat piracy more effectively than enforcement.
I read Frank Rich's article as an indictment of the passivity of the American public in letting this horrendous breach of privacy go almost unnoticed. I didn't get the impression that he was trying to say it was actually no big deal. While he may be wrong, he does present some little nuggets to prove his point: people and the media focused on Snowden and not his revelations. That's a point already made here on Techdirt. There's a good chance Frank Rich is annoyed with the public and media reaction just as much as we are.
The ones I found especially telling: those comments that describe firsthand how top heavy the wealth concentration is in Hollywood. Clinging to what they have and trying to get more is what drives the "leaders". In fact, they are not leading anywhere but down.
I would love to know more about the wealth and revenue distribution in Bollywood. My guess is that it is less lucrative on a per production basis, but more evenly distributed. Again a guess: since the pie is much bigger, smaller slices are just fine.
The last thing we need is the 911 call centers clogged up with even more "non-emergency" calls. It is already a real problem when people dial on purpose and want to complain about their neighbor's dog barking for the last three hours. Of course it's okay if the nature of the call is: "If that dog doesn't shut up I will kill myself and then the rest of the neighborhood. Or something."
It is not a paywall. It is a crowdpatron system. In the very old days, under patronage, one rich dude would pay an artist to produce works for him. With the Internet, individuals can pay a small amount to support their favorite artist, but add many individuals together and you potentially have an artist making a decent living via ongoing payment for production.
This is better than the current regime in several ways. Most importantly it funds FUTURE work of an ARTIST's own creation, and does not extort money out of people for the PAST work of OTHERS.
You'd think the man would stop and parse his own statement, providing him with the ultimate Eureka! moment.
My imagination spins this out in a world where common sense prevails: "We, Hollywood, have to catch up and leverage this technology for our customers. What we learn from this catchup process should well-position us to take advantage of the NEXT technological evolution and actually beat the pirates to it."
Remember the guy who said recently that distribution of Academy award material should not be done digitally because they are all about "theatrical releases"? This is the kind of closed-end position that dooms Hollywood (or dooms the rest of us if the politicians continue to be nourished via Hollywood's teat).
I don't know. I tend to think that, anonymous or not, if you're going to practice incivility, you can at some point expect an uncivil or even insane response.
If you drive around honking and giving the finger to people all the time and one day you are the victim of road rage -- it doesn't make the road-rager right, but you might want to rethink your behavior nonetheless.
The only time DRM ever crosses their mind is when they can't do that. This is when people start looking at piracy as an option.
This is also when people start looking at piracy as the "cause" of their grief. Count the number of comments from people who blame those that pirate games -- not EA or any other purveyor of lame DRM schemes -- as the root of the problem.
This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies.
Both of things supposedly threatened here are probably not at all threatened. The statement is based on nothing but a gut feeling from someone who cannot see beyond what IS.
Give away and pray is NOT what judicious use of free availability, AKA promotion, in a business model is all about. REAL movies can be released in various ways.
<sarcasm> It devalues the Academy Awards to show them on television, which is such a pervasive and free medium. They should invite only Hollywood elite, and hold them in a big theater in secret somewhere. </sarcasm>