Tech Industry Versus Content Industry

gambit3 writes "Business 2.0's Cover Story this month asks whether Andy Grove is a Pirate. Interesting read on the mainstream media about the battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Read about in Business 2.0"

Comments

He "gets it". He actually does.

[VValdo]

I almost cried tears of joy when I read the transcript of W. Brian Arthur (economist), Andy Grove (Intel chairman), and Lawrence Lessig's (law professor) discussion about these issues. A lot of the same points are made that you see daily here on /., and a lot of comparisons to the nineteenth century railroad industry and various information revolutions of the past 200 years.

A very interesting read that helps put current events in an historical context...

If Disney and co get their way...

[dipfan]

... then this could hurt the US tech industry in more ways than one. Groves is right when he says in the article "Suppose I use my personal computer now to create a playlist and burn music onto a CD. Suppose in three years, the only PCs on the market won't allow me to do that? What is my incentive to buy a new computer?" And what's the incentive then for companies to invest in R+D for new consumer devices, if they can't be used because of zealous copyright laws?

Someone should point out an example to Sen. Hollings: the eurobond market. In the 60s and 70s some too-stringent US regulations meant that it was difficult for foreigners to use the US capital markets to sell bonds in US dollars. So the market grew up in Europe instead, where the trade remains enormous today. Overbearing copyright legislation could do the same thing: the innovation in creative industries could easily move abroad to a more relaxed regulatory environment.

(BTW, this was a very good article - although the number of cookies the site tried to place on my machine was ridiculous - about 20, just for reading one article, sheesh. How about some legislation against that?)

Re:My thoughts on reading this article

[Schwarzchild]

I do think they're afraid that the next Great American Director will be able to edit the next Great American film on his Powerbook, stream it himself on the Internet, and not have to use their distribution system to get known.

It almost sounds as if you're talking about George Lucas. Lucas owns his own film company - Lucasfilm. He owns his own effects company - ILM. He owns his own sound company - THX. He isn't beholden to any studio or consumer, IIRC. Heck he even said that he made Phantom Menace for himself and not really for others. That explains why it's such an awful movie. He didn't care what others thought. Anyway, he can deal directly with each theater or whatever and doesn't have to deal with the studios unless he's trying to deal with studio owned movie theaters.

Yeah, I guess they'd be afraid that other directors would go his way too.