Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the film industry needs disrupting

filmschoolrejects.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#51

Post by glenra »

jrockway wrote: post #41
glenra wrote: post #2

> 6. Tricky Hollywood Accounting To film _Matrix Reloaded_, they built a fake freeway on the Alameda naval base in San Francisco. I drove on it (as an extra in the movie); it was really really cool. The company originally thought of keeping this set around for a while to use in driving scenes for other film projects, but they ended up destroying it instead. Why? Because the film was likely to be profitable! A film se…

On the plus side, destroying that set freed up that location for MythBusters to shoot approximately every other episode. And watching Adam and Jamie accidentally drive remote controlled cars into the Bay is much better than any fake freeway in a Matrix sequel.

Right, most car myths get tested there. It's also the usual place you see Adam zipping around on his Segway.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#52

Post by MostAwesomeDude »

Tycho wrote: post #37

The criticism of film copyright seems very short sighted to me. Are people that cheap that they resent paying a few bucks for a great movie? Copyright protection means producers can take much higher risks in the films they choose to make, because even if something has a bad run at the box office, it's still got decades of potential profitability ahead of it. Why should you get to watch On The Waterfront for free?

The point of copyright is to compensate advances in the arts and sciences. Artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of artwork.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#53

Post by Tycho »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #52
Tycho wrote: post #37

The criticism of film copyright seems very short sighted to me. Are people that cheap that they resent paying a few bucks for a great movie? Copyright protection means producers can take much higher risks in the films they choose to make, because even if something has a bad run at the box office, it's still got decades of potential profitability ahead of it. Why should you get to watch On The Waterfront for free?

The point of copyright is to compensate advances in the arts and sciences. Artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of artwork.

Compensate advances in the arts and sciences? What does that even mean?

Anyway I didn't say artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of work. Although in fact that's quite a strange way to put it. They made the work, copyright means they have control over it. Why should YOU be 'compensated' for somebody else's hard work? ie. get it for free

The point however is that having lengthy copyright terms, eg. 100 years, means producers will finance riskier and therefore better films more willingly. If they only had say 20 years of royalties income to count on, the result would be lowest-common-denominator movies being the only ones that get made.

I don't understand why someone would care more about being able to get 20, 30 year old movies for free than they would about paying a few £s (or watching some adverts) to see an old classic. It's like complaining you have to pay to get into the Louvre.

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#56

Post by MostAwesomeDude »

Tycho wrote: post #53
MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of copyright is to compensate advances in the arts and sciences. Artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of artwork.

Compensate advances in the arts and sciences? What does that even mean? Anyway I didn't say artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of work. Although in fact that's quite a strange way to put it. They made the work, copyright means they have control over it. Why should YOU be 'compensated' for somebody else's hard work? ie. get it for free The point however is that having lengthy copyright term…

"copyright means they have control over it"

No, copyright means that they are entitled to be the only seller of the work, for a limited time, to ensure their livelihood. It does not mean that they have control over it. Notably, there are strong consumer rights, such as the right of first sale, which limit the ability of the copyright holder to restrict buyers from reselling the work. There are also exceptions to copyright, known as "fair use" exceptions, which permit copyright to be waived in certain situations.

Copyright used to be short. 28 years. It was anticipated that it would get shorter and shorter, as methods of distribution improved. It is not intended to ensure profits.

The big studios keep gross profit from leaking into net profit by cooking their books. Most of the blockbusters of the past 50 years haven't turned a net profit; they've been carefully rigged so that they appear to be in the red, to keep as much money in the studio as possible. They don't have any qualms about financing bad movies. (Pluto Nash is my favorite example.)

"It's like complaining you have to pay to get into the Louvre."

Most of the artwork in the Louvre can be viewed for free, online. Copies of artwork hosted in the Louvre are quite cheap, and you could make your own for free. Your payment goes towards upkeep of the museum, not towards the artists who created the artwork hosted there.

Can you draw Mickey Mouse? I bet you can. Most people have him etched into their memory, because he's so ubiquitous. Mickey is a character that, over the past century, has become a cornerstone of American culture, in TV and film. I'm sure that you know Mickey quite well. But, according to current copyright and trademark law, you don't own him. Nobody does except for Disney. So you can't have him, despite having grown up with him and having known him your entire life. You can't have a piece of culture. Do you really think that's okay?

Re: Why the film industry needs disrupting

#58

Post by Tycho »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #56
Tycho wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compensate advances in the arts and sciences? What does that even mean? Anyway I didn't say artists should not be compensated eternally for a single piece of work. Although in fact that's quite a strange way to put it. They made the work, copyright means they have control over it. Why should YOU be 'compensated' for somebody else's hard work? ie. get it for free The point however is that having lengthy copyright term…

"copyright means they have control over it" No, copyright means that they are entitled to be the only seller of the work, for a limited time, to ensure their livelihood. It does not mean that they have control over it. Notably, there are strong consumer rights, such as the right of first sale, which limit the ability of the copyright holder to restrict buyers from reselling the work. There are also exceptions to copy…

I think you took a couple of my comments differently from what I meant. The Louvre has an admission fee which is absolutely trivial considering the treasurs within; it makes no sense to quibble over it, not matter what the money goes to. Likewise having to watch TV adverts or spend a few pounds to see a masterpiece like On The Waterfront, is not something worth complaining about. Secondly, the issue was not that big studios are willing to make bad movies, it's that currently they're also willing to make riskier, less formulaic movies too. That could easily change if movies had little shelf life for future profits.

And to answer your question, I'm perfectly okay with not owning Mickey Mouse. I find it hard to believe anyone would get genuinely concerned over that. (In fact if Disney did not aggressively market and control their intellectual property, probably nobody would even remember Mickey Mouse by now.)

Post reply on HN