Or they could, you know, make the movies that are nominated available at a reasonable cost through things like NetFlix and Amazon Prime. Then they could profit from all the buzz around the awards.
It has been shown over and over that most people would prefer to obtain their programs legally and will do so willingly if they have the opportunity.
But making the movies available would do two things that MPAA executives can't abide. First, they would give up some control. They love making those complicated licensing agreements and regional marketing schemes. The last thing they want to do is go with a simple system that gives people what they want. Second, they would have to admit that they have been wrong for so many years.
Apparently big banks are the only institutions that are allowed to launder money without penalties. In fairness to the banks, they do seem to do it quite well. Their skill is based on long practice with huge amounts of money. We can't allow anyone to cut into that lucrative business. They probably should get another subsidy.
>>The broadcasters simply want Aereo to pay for the privilege since Aereo is making money off their signal.
That is exactly the kind of zero-sum thinking that causes businesses big problems. The mind-set is that if someone else is making money, I must be loosing it. But the entertainment industry is not a zero-sum game. In this case Aereo has expanded the audience for the broadcasters at essential zero marginal cost to the broadcasters. The actual problem for the broadcasters is that they don't have an easy method of measuring the expanded audience so they can charge advertisers. Those measurements would probably be possible to get, but the broadcasters would have to cooperate with Aereo to get it.
The argument can be made that the broadcasters should be paying Aereo for expanding their market.
The broadcasters can point to another disastrous SCOTUS ruling as a demonstration about dangers of a favorable ruling. They can point to the devastating impact the Betamax ruling had on the entertainment industry.
As local police get more militarized we can expect more of this type of story. Part of the militarization process is training regiments that see the public as the enemy. Ironically this forces citizens to see the militarized police as the enemy. We are in a very deadly spiral.
The police will usually justify this type of shooting as "Officer Safety" concerns. Where is the concern for "Citizen Safety?"
Hence the desire of the big cable companies to merge. They have to do something to make sure they can maintain their monopoly on broadband. They don't want one of the other players to go all "T-Mobile" on them and disrupt the market or demonstrate that there are alternative business models besides forced bundles.
The mechanisms used in the name of "protecting the children," preventing piracy, and mass surveillance are each a gateway to the other two. Protecting the children is the most palatable to politicians, but once those filters are in place someone will want to add other features such as attempting to block terrorist sites, piracy, defamation of public figures, and political dissent. And the appliances that do the filtering provide a convenient intersection for surveillance.
Similarly, surveillance implemented to fight terrorism will inevitably expand. First, legitimate political dissent becomes indistinguishable from terrorist threats, at least to the people charged with monitoring terrorists. It is also inevitable that information on non-terrorist crimes gets monitored and passed on to enforcement agencies. Apparently the MPAA is now considered a government enforcement agency, so they are going to get data, too.
But did they consider youtube? If we take big content's right to charge for youtube content that they don't hold copyright on, how much would that change their economic outlook? It would be pretty bleak if they could not steal revenue from people singing songs that are in the public domain and similar things.
I backed Obama in the primaries in large part because he was a constitutional lawyer and I saw our civil liberties being eroded. I was impressed that he was one of the few Senators willing to stand up to government surveillance. What happened to that guy?
For local governments the main incentives have been revenue that initially looked less painful than increasing other forms of taxation. Governments are finally realizing that they effectively ship 50% of the communities wealth out of town, and that the cameras were far from painless revenue.
Not all shareholders are created equal. The way executive compensation works means that company executives are big shareholders in one form or another. This gives them a huge incentive to look out for themselves when making corporate decisions. They can look out for themselves and still hide behind a claim that they are looking out for the interests of stockholders.
Unfortunately, this means that "long term" often means the time frame where they can cash out their stock options.
I suspect that AT&T is getting a huge payback for its cooperation with the NSA and other government agencies. There are probably lucrative monetary payments as well as a great deal of influence on policy issues.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Even if he loses trademark protection he can still profit. He just loses the ability to keep other people from also profiting. Actually that could be an interesting thing to watch. It is possible that having more widespread use of the mark might actually make the brand more valuable.