<<Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there.>>
If a film company can't produce a film and make money from it through its own distribution model, then in the end it will stop making films. There are plenty of people who would like to make money doing what they like, but can't find a way of making their revenue stream work. The market decides - the market isn't there to support bad business models. Film companies, etc, will have to adapt to survive and thrive. As an analogy, we're moving, in terms of energy supply, to micro production rather than having huge power supplies vast distances away. Maybe it is the same with media. The time of the blockbuster and the TV channel as we knew it is dead? Maybe this is a new micro media age? What's wrong with that? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 9:29 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM? > The media producers are clearly getting a free lunch here, > they can sell the same thing again and again, never having to > give up any of there own possessions but requiring others to > surrender their items in exchange. Lord of the Rings. Three big budget films. How do you think they got financed? Someone looked at the budgets and said "Right. Lets say we make this much in ticket sales, this much in merchandise, this much in DVD sales". But whack! Copyright is gone, so the DVD income goes. Copyright affects the merchandise because anyone can legally knock off merchandise without the sayso of the people who created it. Oh and the cinema doesn't have to worry - it can just get one copy and give it to the rest in its chain. And lo, the film can no longer be financed. Free lunch? Nah. You've just destroyed the entire model that funded the film. Thousands of people who would have had work, now have none. Sure, some people /might/ buy the official DVD, but others won't. The funding isn't there. To bring this to the BBC, the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, pumps money into some programmes on the basis that it knows it will make money back off DVD sales, book sales etc. > Let us not forget that there is no natural need for > copyright, we could function fine without it. It is only > through government legislation that such a thing exists. Maybe we would. But maybe a lot of things you value, would be destroyed. If I want to spend time on a project, then release it freely to all, that's my decision. However if I spend my time on a project and want to try and make money off it, why shouldn't I? It's my idea, my project. Why should I let someone else make money off it if I don't want to. And you're going to have one hell of a time persuading the population of the world that they should reliquish all rights to their work because some people have a completely anti-copyright stance. Most of them will just think you're bonkers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
