Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood afraid of Microsoft
prostoalex writes "Associated Press claims that media industry has been quietly avoiding Microsoft and trying to keep the movie and music industries to their own. However, these days there's little chance of doing business without Microsoft and the movie studios are afraid of digital piracy more than they're afraid of Microsoft. The biggest fear? Microsoft will use its desktop PC monopoly to charge Hollywood outrageous fees and basically own the movie industry. Microsoft refutes the accusations, saying that it's only interested in selling more copies of Windows and applications for its platform, and providing movie content would promote the platform. Also noteworthy that among the four video-on-demand services that New York Times reviewed recently two that got the journalistic acclaim (StarzTicket and CinemaNow) are run by technology companies - Real Networks and Microsoft."
Microsoft views these deals as thawing its icy relations with Hollywood and eradicating old stereotypes about Microsoft software being buggy.
...studios say they need to encourage competition so they won't be held hostage by one company.
Well of course it can't as it has been proven time and time again that it is indeed buggy and exploitable. It seems to me that the current methods for playing movies in theatres works pretty damn well and it isn't exactly as if MS' deals are going to make distribution inexpensive enough to become attractive.
Yet Microsoft can't quite shake fears that its real intention is to use its monopoly position to charge Hollywood outrageous fees to access the computer desktop.
They charge everyone else astronomical licensing fees and speculation that it will only get worse is running rampant - probably justifiably so. Would they really cut Hollywood such a sweet deal as to protect them forever from licensing fees that would make this cost prohibitive? I doubt it. I would really like to know exactly how MS is trying to sell this to them.
To be honest though, I am fairly impressed that Hollywood is actually making a stand and telling them off. I don't know too many other businesses that would be so wary.
That is one hysterical comment that was only for the benefit of those that won't RTFA.
Sure they can't own the movie industry...but they can certainly give themselves a stranglehold over its distrobution resourcse.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The suits who run the studios are so disconnected* from the techies in the render farms that such issues never enter their brains.** And to big-corp-think, of course, free software -- free anything -- is an abomination and unclean anyway. Understanding this, IMO, is key to understanding everything from the [MP|RI]AA's reaction to piracy, to Microsoft's reaction to Linux. In their perfect world, you pay for everything; more specifically, you pay them for everything. The idea that anyone might be able to get useful stuff for free wakes them up in screaming nightmares. This is not rational cost-benefit analysis. This is a clash of worldviews as fundamental as Galileo's with the Church.
--
* I'm not claiming any special insider knowledge of how Hollywood studios work. This is my guess based on my experience of how big corporations work in general.
** If they have brains. Or hearts. Or courage. All of which are highly debatable.
Remember a ways back when Microsoft announced codecs for use in digital theatres. I'm not sure of implementation #'s but this was when they could have staved this off. Trusted Computing, DRM are here because Hollywood was a huge proponent of these technologies. Here is your bed, Hollywood.
If Microsoft had their way there would be:
no selling of their software on EBay.
no ownership of the software after you purchase it (they really own it you just license it from them)
I guess MS has two outputs: Software and bugs?
DIRAC, the BBC-technology project to bring a new, royalty and patent free open source codec into life, has got to be worth looking into.
Yes, well, I'll believe it when I see it. The BBC is funded by the British taxpayer to the tune of GBP 2.5Bn (that's around USD 4Bn) per year. All the material they produce WE ALREADY OWN. I should be able to download - or at least, buy for the cost of the media alone - anything produced by the BBC ever, simply by proving that I've paid the TV tax (which I have). Instead, the BBC is off on some ivory tower "let's invent a new format" wild goose chase.
There are already squillions of codecs. The BBC should just pick one and get to work encoding its video archives for download. Dirac is nothing but procrastination.
I'll take a cue from Lord of the Rings here, and refer you to the suggestion to let Saruman and Sauron (the two main evils) battle it out and exterminate themselves, to which Gandalf replies: but the winner would get out of the fight stronger, and without doubt.
I think this is the case. I fear they would not exterminate each other, but most likely one would emerge the winner, and we the public would be the biggest losers. Better to let them stay wary of each other while we run an underground movement to defeat both opponents at once.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
They used to render on SGIs before. The only point of FilmGimp and Linux renderfarms is that their profit margin is now bigger.
It has had zero effect for the public.
Sorry, it has had the effect that some software made it back to the community, so it has had an effect on a very small margin of the public after all.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Actually, I'd just like to see a computer in a movie that is what it is, and not some bastardization of Windows and Mac and usually some concocted audio/animated GUI nonsense where the "envelope" for an email folds up and disappears into a fake screen horizon upon "send".
Watching a movie and seeing a C:\ prompt on a monitor emblazoned with the Apple logo just bothers me.
The AMC Buckhead Backlot 6 in Atlanta does exactly that. It's a movie theater/restaurant, and is quite successful.
The new Internet 2: Censored.
o mmentary7.htm
The new revised Internet sequel, Internet 2 coming to a PC near you is a fully censorship based controlled media. Enjoy the old free Internet now while you can.
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_c
Although I am enjoying liberal Hollywood taking a beating for dumping their nonsense leftist movies on us, Microsoft would be worse. MSNBC is a failure. (MS = Microsoft)
Ths new Internet 2: Censored, should make Microsoft our official Censorship Czar for the U.S.A. (*sigh*)
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
I'm sure the DVD releases will replace all those ads with self-serving ads, like previews fro the newest "Studio ABC" release, or simply a shout out to their own company! I'm still sick of all the product placements from "Minority Report" and I feel it's only going to get worse. . .
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
I've noticed something over the course of watching hundreds of movies over the years. Invariably when a movie shows a PC or a notebook it is 9 times out of 10 a Macintosh. I've found this to be rather odd, considering how disproportionate this ratio is compared to the real world. It would be interesting if someone compiled a database of movies and the computing hardware used for props.
I've often wondered what underlying politics within the movie industry drives this trend, as it certainly is no coincidence.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.