Mike Masnik wrote: Fan edits and remixes of music are pretty popular and widely encouraged by artists these days. But, FOR WHATEVER REASON,(zeitgeyser's emphasis) the same viewpoint doesn't seem to extend much to movies (again, Lucasfilm is a slight, but not complete, exception).
Well first there IS a specific reason, to wit: Usually the artists don't wn their own copyights - particularly in arenas like music and movies - they sell those rights to huge media MANUFACTURERS (hold that thought it's important...) thus making them the equivalent of share croppers on their own cultural land. Even though they are (relatively) well paid they must give up their copyrights inorder to get their art in front of a mass audience. This is because until the internet mass media ALWAYS involved mass, 19-century industrial revolution style manufacturing which entailed large capital investments to build and run the factories. What the media conglomerate have forgotten/confused is that people don't buy books, CDs, DVDs, whatever because they want the artifact. They buy it because they want the content. They are protecting a dead business model. This is like a food retailer thinking that people go to the grocery story and buy canned green beans so they can have the f***ing can the beans came in.
In addition to this huge mistake, because they were focused on manufacturing, they also have missed the fact that cultural production has a COMPLETELY different economic imperative. They're protecting the wrong thing! But I don't have time to talk about that right now so until the next time one of these blog posts makes me foam at the mouth...
Anonymous coward wrote: So does Aereo pay for the content it retransmits? Or do they simply take it for free and monetize for their own benefit. If a cable station or Netflix broadcasts a program. I'm sure that either they produced it themselves (incurring a cost) or bought the rights to retransmit (incurring a cost). Sounds like more freeloading for commercial gain to me.
What's wrong with this business model? It's exactly the same business model many internet co.s use including Google, Yahoo and Bing to name just the big search engines. They all just pick up MY (and your) personal information, monetize for their own benefit... If companies are selling my information I wanna know where my cut is. i wanna be able to have a say in who it's sold to (or if it is sold to anybody) and what the price point is. Just sayin...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by zeitgeyser.
Fan media & copyright
Mike Masnik wrote: Fan edits and remixes of music are pretty popular and widely encouraged by artists these days. But, FOR WHATEVER REASON,(zeitgeyser's emphasis) the same viewpoint doesn't seem to extend much to movies (again, Lucasfilm is a slight, but not complete, exception).
Well first there IS a specific reason, to wit: Usually the artists don't wn their own copyights - particularly in arenas like music and movies - they sell those rights to huge media MANUFACTURERS (hold that thought it's important...) thus making them the equivalent of share croppers on their own cultural land. Even though they are (relatively) well paid they must give up their copyrights inorder to get their art in front of a mass audience. This is because until the internet mass media ALWAYS involved mass, 19-century industrial revolution style manufacturing which entailed large capital investments to build and run the factories. What the media conglomerate have forgotten/confused is that people don't buy books, CDs, DVDs, whatever because they want the artifact. They buy it because they want the content. They are protecting a dead business model. This is like a food retailer thinking that people go to the grocery story and buy canned green beans so they can have the f***ing can the beans came in.
In addition to this huge mistake, because they were focused on manufacturing, they also have missed the fact that cultural production has a COMPLETELY different economic imperative. They're protecting the wrong thing! But I don't have time to talk about that right now so until the next time one of these blog posts makes me foam at the mouth...
Re:Aereo retransmission business model
Anonymous coward wrote: So does Aereo pay for the content it retransmits? Or do they simply take it for free and monetize for their own benefit. If a cable station or Netflix broadcasts a program. I'm sure that either they produced it themselves (incurring a cost) or bought the rights to retransmit (incurring a cost). Sounds like more freeloading for commercial gain to me.
What's wrong with this business model? It's exactly the same business model many internet co.s use including Google, Yahoo and Bing to name just the big search engines. They all just pick up MY (and your) personal information, monetize for their own benefit... If companies are selling my information I wanna know where my cut is. i wanna be able to have a say in who it's sold to (or if it is sold to anybody) and what the price point is. Just sayin...