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."
> 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.
This is FUD. Microsoft can't own the movie industry because the movie industry doesn't even own the movie industry. The customers own the movie industry and if Hollywood continues putting out crap films, studio execs will only have themselves to blame for the fall of Hollywood. Obviously Microsoft doesn't want that to happen. They want to keep doing business with Hollywood and Microsoft is afraid of Open Source, so Billy's army of one will only have to start competing with Open Source in a way that is fair and honest (not "Best Practice", True Practice), or Microsoft too will only have themselves to blame when the palace of cards comes tumbling down.
I see some parallelism here between Hollywood and Microsoft. Both are too big for their own good and it's about time they realize it and start acting like they have something to lose if they don't change their tactics.
I just saw a Canadian movie today called Shot in the Face (2001). Yes the fans at IMDB give it an under-rated 5.6/10, but to me the film had a unique plot, interesting characters and it was fun -- it was just low budget, but it still brought a smile to my face. Obviously not A-list by any stretch of the imagination. My point is that large organizations take something unique out of films, and they also take something unique out of software and operating systems. Polish sometimes ruins things, and both these industries have ruined their products by either having too much polish in all the wrong places, or by have not enough polish in the places that matter.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I love it when the monopolies... err I mean, monopoly and oligopoly fight.
With MPAA on one side and Microsoft on the other, I just don't know who to cheer for.
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.
If you replaced the word 'afraid' with 'jealous.'
And the movie industry is the nicest bunch of people you'd ever want to meet. No vendetta's, no black listing, everyone operates above the board. Every movie star is the perfect role model for our children.
If they get mixed up with the likes of Bill Gates, I just don't know what this will do to our shining example of what Americans are really like?
Simple. Don't buy into their DRM scheme. Release movies on the net with a proprietary or with another vendor's IP for DRM.
Hollywood is generally the greediest of them all. After all, if they had their way:
So I guess they really have two outputs: Movies and FUD.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
...For all the accusations and hyperbole here, he seems a much more honest businessman than the hollywood crowd. Hopefully their sleazy(er?) practices don't rub off on Microsoft!
Blar.
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.
Microsoft has shown time and time again that it's primary objective is making money in the long term. It'll do that through whatever opportunities present themselves. Now, the players in the movie industry aren't stupid. They've seen how MS has locked others into their proprietary formats and they don't want their revenue streams subverted similarly.
As for MS's "noble" intentions...pure bullshit. Where did MSNBC come from if MS wasn't interested in encroaching on Hollywood?
Well, the BBC has rightly identified this risk, and is politely telling MS, and the other "controlled" DRM pay-per-hour-encoding people where to shove their technology.
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.
Surely someone with an ounce of intelligence in Hollywood could put 2+2 together and make 4. ie, Hollywood has money. DIRAC looks good, and could do with industry support and resources...
As our American cousins would say, "you do the math".
With MPAA on one side and Microsoft on the other, I just don't know who to cheer.
Mutual annihilation (nuclear weapons optional)?
If the Media Cartels and Hollywood mutually destroyed one another, we'd not only see the renaissance in software we've seen in the free software world accelerate even faster, we'd see a renaissance in cultural expression as well.
Unfortunately the two are very likely to work out a sweetheart deal that destroys both and leaves us with nothing but a cultural wasteland in both arenas.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Is Microsoft therefore scarier than republicans by transitivity?
I mean, I know there's shades of grey and then there's shades of grey... but this is grey.
Hey, neat, instead of my Uncle, Bob's my parent.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Blue Screen, coming to a cinema near you...
Slightly OT, but I saw this coming, alongside Microsofts patent scams, 'licensing' their API's (read, now they are established, pay for them biatch, whilst destroying other standards).
Microsoft are moving in subtle ways - they have the money to do this as well.
Now we can have bad movies that delete themselves, at least that saves us the trouble...
I wonder how long it will be before they dynamically or on the fly replace movie scenes and adverts within movies across the lifespan of the movie?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Henry Kissinger's comment on the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's: "Too bad they can't both lose."
Used DVDs. That's how I usually scratch my moviegoing itch. Usually one can buy them for about $10...that's less than what it costs for two people to go to the movies even during matinee performances. The MPAA doesn't get my money, the pigopolists don't get my money, I get to see a recent movie, and if I like the movie I can watch it again whenever I want to.
If you rent instead of buy, there is a rental sales list that is published weekly, so the MPAA can keep track of what people rent. However, they don't have a list (yet) for used DVD sales. And unlike used VHS tapes, they can't dirty up your DVD player. Just give the DVD a nice wipe with a static-free wet wipe before you first play it.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
"xXxP" - Vin Diesel returns as the tattooed secret agent. This time he's after Open Source Communists and he's only taking DRM for an answer...
"The XP Men" - see the superpower team of Dr DLL, Outlookman, Captain Codec, Blue Screener and The Worm battle the "Freedom Force" of Stallman, the Perlmonger, Apache and Python...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
That could lead to:
Windows II: Webcentric Boogaloo
Clippy Strikes Back
The Neverending BSOD
And many others too terrible to imagine...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
But more than any-any-anything else, it fears losing money. So find an application (like, oh say, linux rendering servers) that saves significant money, and that crowd will jump at it. Give them a linux movie client that returns real dollar to them and they will jump at the new distribution media.
Remember: Hollywood will go with Linux if it Makes Money.
What makes you think F/OSS is any less secure? Because you can see how the lock is made? If it's made right, it shouldn't matter. If it's implemented right, it shouldn't matter.
And if it isn't, then someone can find out quickly and without fear of DMCA enforcement and let the coders know there's an issue.
Because in its long history, PGP has been hacked HOW many times?
GTRacer
- P.S. It's naivete.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Because in its long history, PGP has been hacked HOW many times?
:-)
That's because the problem PGP solves is... well... solvable. DRM is the art of giving information to someone without giving it to them. Not just impossible, plain stupid. Now I'm as much a FOSS fan as the next (/.) guy, but I don't think it can do the impossible.
Don't trust me, trust Schneier on this: once you deliver the encripted stream *and* the key to somebody, there is no security at all.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Now that would be a victory whole slashdot could enjoy. Read this for more details: http://vai.com/AllAboutSteve/postcard_040220.html
Guess what, I quote:
For instance, If you go to Itunes and download a song for $.99, Apple retains about $.34 and the label receives about $.65. Labels then calculate a royalty base price to apply to the artists deal points. Following are some of the deductions:
a. A packaging fee (container cost) of up to, and sometimes more than, 25%. That's 25% of retail which is $.99 equaling about $.25 (by the way, there is no packaging on a digital download).
b. A 15% deduction for free goods. That's an additional $.15 or so. (There is usually no free goods with digital downloads unless someone is ripping it from the net.
That leaves a royalty base price of close to $.60 per track that the artists royalty is calculated against. If an artist receives 15 points in their deal (and remember, that's a very good deal) then he is entitled to aprox. $.09 a track. This is then cut in half because of the "new technology clause" that is incorporated into most deals. The artists royalty is then calced out at $.04-.05 a download and from that, 100% of it is withheld by the label to go towards recoupment of any advances to make the record, advances in general, tour support, radio promotion and other things in some cases. Most managers and producers are paid from record one and are paid regardless of the expenses, leaving the artists with even more of a recoupment burden before they start to see any income.
Quote ends. Suddenly hollywood people look like Mother Theresa.
Hollywood wants super secret encryption
Firstly a stupid question is one that questions a premise that everyone falsely believes to be true so here goes
If encryption is a methods to allow two trusted parties to comunicate without an untrusted third party understanding the communication; how could Hollywood, use it to comunicate with an un-trusted consummer? Obviously they can't. Some how, some way Hollywood has to give the decryption key to the untrusted for viewing and no matter how obfuscated the key is, it has to be available and therefore breakable.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds