Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Y Combinator Wants To Kill Hollywood

Posted by Soulskill on from the bigger-they-are-the-harder-they-fall dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Y Combinator, a firm that invests in startups, has put out a call to kill Hollywood. In a post on their site, the firm said attempts at legislation similar to SOPA wouldn't stop until there is no industry left to protect. They now want to incubate ideas for new types of entertainment, so we can evolve the movie and television industries. Quoting: 'There will be several answers, ranging from new ways to produce and distribute shows, through new media (e.g. games) that look a lot like shows but are more interactive, to things (e.g. social sites and apps) that have little in common with movies and TV except competing with them for finite audience attention. Some of the best ideas may initially look like they're serving the movie and TV industries. Microsoft seemed like a technology supplier to IBM before eating their lunch, and Google did the same thing to Yahoo.'"

24 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Cue the lawsuits by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dodd and the MPAA are not going to take this sort of thing sitting down. They will sue over every word that ever appeared in any movie or TV show. They will attack any technology that is used to distribute this entertainment. They will lobby for laws forbidding this sort of thing.

    So, how can we help fight them?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Cue the lawsuits by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This battle will probably fail.. but I think this is how the war is ultimately going to be won..

      Not by some massive project, but with little nibbles over a long period of time. Stuff like this shows that more and more people are getting fed up. They fail and someone else tries, then someone else, etc.. eventually you will see something persistent, and it will gradually get more and more share until it is a serious competitor, and hopefully, a replacement for the existing media establishment.

    2. Re:Cue the lawsuits by muuh-gnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > So, how can we help fight them?

      Change the election system in the US so you dont have to "fight" them any more, but can just vote them out of politics. Take the power politicians have to push abusive, bad laws. Bring in more direct democracy, so that lawmaking becomes more independent of the few bribeable, single points of failure (politicians). MPAA/RIAA are only able to influence laws because there are only so few politicians to bribe and because, after being bribed, nobody can stop them from introducing abusive laws.

      In my view, Paul Graham got it completely wrong. It is not Hollywood that has to be fought, it is the undemocratic political system that has to go. Hollywood just abuses the buggy system because it is so easy to abuse (think Windows 98). After YC "kills Hollywood", simply somebody else will come up to bribe politicians and purchase laws because it is so effective. The system allows for rich people to literally purchase laws.

      The cure is not to merely stop this one case of abuse, but to debug the system to prevent any further abuses. "Debug the system" in this case means introduce switzerland style direct democracy to make people able to bypass "professional" politicians and to directly veto abusive and unjust laws.

    3. Re:Cue the lawsuits by Nugoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's a start. As far as I know, donating to the EFF also helps people fight the lawsuits.

      --
      I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
    4. Re:Cue the lawsuits by yincrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      California is a clear example of why direct democracy doesn't scale. I think the reform has to happen on lobbying level. Should politicians be able to become lobbyists?

    5. Re:Cue the lawsuits by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, it's been baby steps of progress. Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Hulu, Microsoft, Roku, Nintendo (etc) have all shown that inexpensive, easy-to-use, reliable, on-demand content delivery to customers televisions isn't just entirely workable, but popular.

      Various billing models for different kinds of media are being tried. Now Netflix, Hulu and Microsoft are getting into exclusive content production. That's a big leap forward.

      The trick is, and I think the Y Combinator folks understand this, is to not lose sight of the fact that the customers are increasingly capable and they want what they want. Giving them something else and saying, "Tough, that's the way it is and you'll like it." just isn't going to fly anymore.

    6. Re:Cue the lawsuits by suprcvic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Change the election system in the US so you dont have to "fight" them any more, but can just vote them out of politics.

      In theory that's how it already works. The problem is that everybody is happy with their own representative, it's everybody else that's the problem. Not to mention, changing the system of electing officials requires the approval of said officials.

    7. Re:Cue the lawsuits by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because of people like you. A law isn't something you buy, and thinking so confuses the issue. A politician is something you invest in, something you cultivate. I have said you don't buy laws, you buy politicians. But that is an oversimplification.

      MAFIAA recently said to Obama not to count on Hollywood money next time. That should explain how it works. You pay money up front for someone to get elected, hopefully someone who shares your opinions. When votes come up, politicians look to see who funded them. NOT to see who to vote for, but to see whose support they need to win the next election.

      Every vote, every bill, every decision, is about not alienating the people whose support you count on for the next cycle. Politics is a long game, and individuals usually only thing about things per-issue. Because they don't understand how politics works.

      Until people start taking a look at candidates, how they voted, what they actually did, long term, this won't change. The people only want someone to say the right things, like Gingrich does, not do the right things. As long as he says what they want to hear, he can screw them again and again.

      Or the simple answer - Hollywood usually votes Democrat because Republicans have tried to censor profanity and nudity. So Democrats and California politicians do what Hollywood wants, for continued funding. The politician is bought, the laws don't have to be.

    8. Re:Cue the lawsuits by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it's been baby steps of progress. Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Hulu, Microsoft, Roku, Nintendo

      Who exactly are you trying to kill? All of these entities are deeply enmeshed with, if not outright owned and operated by "old media."

      In the end it's going to be approximately the same people doing the same sort of business under the same names, they're just going to get their money from ads instead of from sales, subscribers and tickets. Progress?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:Cue the lawsuits by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck you for thinking you know better than The People.

      One vote by the people in 1978 now basically dictates the shape of California government for evermore. It's made elections worthless, because no matter who you vote for they can't actually change anything. It was some dork's idea of the night watchman state, where inner city schools would magically pay for themselves and the evil government had to be stopped from fixing too many streets in a year.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    10. Re:Cue the lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is less of a problem than one may think. The main issue is that online gatekeepers have USA on the brain.

      There is a world of content creators out there. We have been used by Hollywood studios to make A Grade content for decades, and then we are tossed onto the scrapheap when contracts are completed.

      New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, England, Ireland, South Korea, The Philippines... all viable content sources. In many cases, Americans have no idea that the mini series, animation, TV shows are staffed, set in, voiced by, acted by and starred by New Zealanders or Australians who are pretty good at faking American accents. When I have listed some in the past, Americans can not believe that some Stephen King mini series was not shot in Maine and instead shot in a small town just outside Auckland New Zealand.

      Production is cheaper outside USA, but not cheap enough. Thats where creative disruptive people like myself come in. As a storyboard artist and director, I am always finding cheaper ways to give the same effect. I have halved the cost of production on some of the projects I have been associated with.

      I have been in preproduction for my own online TV show for 2.5 years. We are ready to shoot the pilot in two months. We have already created half a dozen disruptive technologies that should reduce the cost of production 50%. As a bonus, it should speed up the production to a weekly turnaround on a cast and crew of ten.

      If we source writing talent from outside USA, the writers will come cheaper than American Hollywood writers, and as a bonus, they come up with the original ideas. After decades of having their ideas stolen by Hollywood Writers, Directors and Producers, it will be a refreshing change for them to get paid... and refreshing for us to get the new stories straight from the creators, instead of filtered through the Hollywood Homogenising machine.

    11. Re:Cue the lawsuits by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's amazing how so many foreign films and independent titles seem to get by on much smaller budgets.

  2. Godspeed to them by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the end of the day, all things being equal if the government has to step in and decide who it will legislatively favor, I’m hoping it is the tech industry. America is and for a long time has been losing its place in the world. We cannot compete with third world manufacturing, we have deliberately sacrificed our spot as a scientific leader by diverting funds away from a physics supercollider (The Large Hadron Collider in Europe is where future breakthroughs will occur while we now watch on the sidelines), we have given up NASA and future space exploration will be spearheaded by China and India, and we are dumbing down our science, math, and literacy education while the rest of the world ups their game.

    We basically have two things left, we are leaders in information technology, and leaders in making Lady Gaga CDs and Chipmunk movie sequels. Which do you believe is doing to be the best industry to foster a friendly environment for to maintain the relevance of America in the world? The media industry exists on the whim of the US government and other governments going along with our endless copyright extensions. Should they decide to stop, there is no value in what they create. Media can be copied for free, there is no scarcity of resources in the distribution, the basic rules of economics don’t work here.

    I’m not suggesting that the whole concept of intellectual property is null and void. It has its failings and certainly the way copyright is being handled is despicable (I also feel software patents are insane and detrimental to the information technology industry). But I do know that if this is to be a showdown between two industries, I want the one to win that actually produces something of economic, societal, and tangible value. If Hollywood and the music industry are simply incompatible with technology, then I think we can do without the next Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, but I don’t think we can do without the next Google, Microsoft, or IBM. Do we want to be a country of technical leaders advancing civilization along, or do we want to be the court jesters, a diversion for the Chinese and other emerging technologies to get some cheap laughs from while they surpass us in all other areas?

    1. Re:Godspeed to them by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Intellectual property laws came about as a way to balance public interest with private interest. Without some kind of copyright and patent protection, there is less incentive to create something intangible (like music, software, medicine, etc), especially it it involves significant up front costs and effort. However, to balance this against public interest, time limits were put into place and the concept of patents on non-physical items were not initially considered (that is what copyrights were for).

      The last couple decades have seen a total removal of the concept of public interest in IP law, it is now 100% about maximizing profits for distribution middlemen (note: not the actual creators themselves, look who is doing all of the lobbying). Copyright for all intents and purposes is perpetual and dictated by the age of a cartoon mouse, I don't think anyone believes it is not going to be extended the next time it is up for renewal. Patents on non-tangible items (software patents) and on items that were not created but discovered (genetic patents) have further abused the system.

      The idea of intellectual property is not inherently bad, but the current execution and the corruption around it now are more detrimental to society than helpful.

    2. Re:Godspeed to them by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Hollywood have been waging a war on copyright infringement, not technology.

      Hollywood has been waging an ill advised war on any technology that could have copyright infringement implications (which is a decent percentage). Remember the VCR? I was going to be to the movie industry what the boston strangler was to woman. (remember how destructive VCRs were to Hollywood? It barely survived)
      This is simply a continuation of the kind of ignorant resistance to technology that would actually be beneficial to the large media conglomerates if they were capable of adapting and innovating instead of just chucking money at Congress to keep extending copyright.

      > Google's beef with SOPA is that they don't want to constantly police their own search results and be held responsible for user generated content.

      I'm sure it also had something to do with the other myriad of technically unrealistic provisions around DNS and such, but yes.

      > If there was a way to magically get rid of copyright infringement violations without putting extra burden on Google or other Internet start ups, then both Hollywood and Google would support it. There is some common ground on the issue, and compromises can be made to make sure both industries can thrive.

      So when do we see that start happening instead of the constant bribery of elected officials to enact draconian laws they don't understand, extend copyright to save a stupid mouse from entering public domain, and manipulating international treaties to stack copyright law and technology regulations in their favor?

  3. "Kill" is hyperbole by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the announcement, you'll quickly realize that Y Combinator thinks that the industry as a whole is stagnant, and that it sees opportunities for innovation in the realm of entertainment outside of the Hollywood system. Hollywood is dying on its own; Y Combinator wants to invest in the next generation of mass media.

    --
    I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
  4. Re:Video games by Asmor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Video games really just shift the problem. The ESA (which until very recently supported SOPA, against many of its largest members' public whims) could very well be the MAFIAA of the future.

    The problem isn't Hollywood, the problem isn't even industry groups... The problem is publishers. Music labels, in particular, need to die a quick death.

    Kill the book publishers. Kill the music labels. Kill the movie studios. Kill the video game publishers. The latter two, I realize, might not quite be feasible yet, as the economics are such that it's really not possible for an unknown group to fund themselves for a large movie or game project, but in the case of books and music? They serve no purpose whatsoever anymore, and are just parasites sucking money out of those they represent, putting impediments in front of those they sell to, and slowing down the pace of technology and innovation.

  5. Follow The Money.... by rajeevrk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why dont the top 100 odd tech firms just get their boards together and buy out the entertainment industry, Fire all the old chaff, then figure out what do do with whats left. Even if they end up writing off the entire investment, the savings in reduced interference from a dying industry(Lawsuits, Trusted Computing, SOPA/PIPA etc.) will justify the few hundred billion. Plus, the innovation it will unleash when all those rent-seeking collaboration-killing laws become irrelevant will bring soo much new life into the dying(yes DYING!!) economies of the developed world.

    Sadly, i dont have any hope that such a scenario will ever come to pass, especially when most tech firms behaving more like a pot of lobsters...

    (sigh...)

    1. Re:Follow The Money.... by brainzach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Walt DIsney alone is worth 70 billions dollars. No one is going to buy it out unless they can make that money back.

      Even if you do that, the old chaff will just start new companies and attract investors because they know how to make money in the entertainment industry.

      What is needed is alternative business models to compete with the old industry. It can costs millions of dollars to make movies and there has to be ways to finance it. Follow the money.

  6. Just buy them by Skreems · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously. Apple has 76B sitting in the bank, Microsoft has 55B. Time Warner has a market cap of 37B, hell even the media giant that is Disney/Pixar has a market cap of only 70B. A lot of the music companies are a fair bit smaller.

    The distribution channels (Apple, Google, etc) are bending over backwards on deals with companies that they could acquire in a hostile takeover tomorrow if they wanted to. It's crazy.

    --
    Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
    The Urban Hippie
    1. Re:Just buy them by brainzach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Apple or Microsoft buys Disney, they will milk money out of it the same way the current management does. Apple would make it worst by only allowing movies to be shown on Apple devices.

      If Google buys Disney, they will fund movies by selling product placement spots.

  7. Foster Creativity By Shortening Copyright Length by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is all this raging against "the music industry" and the "film industry." Meanwhile the people doing all the raging are soaking or craving up the products of those industries like mad. Isn't that hypocritical?

    I have no problem with the music and film industries vigorously protecting their rights. But I am extremely pissed off that those rights extend for so damn long.

    I don't care too much about the parasites who want their movies and music for free. I care a lot about the creative people who want to be able to draw from music and movies from the thirties, forties, and fifties. They should be free to copy and mash and improve on those earlier works. That would make our artistic world a much richer place.

  8. Missed the true point of SOPA by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its really not about protecting the music/movie/etc industries. That is just the excuse to get it passed with ( some ) citizen support. Its really about the restriction of freedoms and a increase in government control over our lives. The entire 'anti piracy' angle is just a 'shiny smokescreen' if you like.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. Killing music labels is feasible by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Killing the music labels is quite feasible. They don't do much. They don't manufacture records - that's outsourced, and anybody can have a CD manufactured. They don't run the download systems - Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon do that. They don't run recording studios - those are mostly independent, and anybody can book studio time. Their relationships with record stores (what record stores?) hardly matter any more.

    The music labels have two remaining functions, one of which is attackable under antitrust law. They pay payola to radio stations for airplay and make deals with concert venues. Both have been the subject of antitrust investigations. They also do promotion. That's their real function.

    The one remaining function of record labels is venture capital. They "sign" bands and put in startup capital. Others can do that. YCombinator could do that. Venture capital firms might fund a company to do that. Myspace briefly did that. That's where the labels are vulnerable.

    "Own your own stuff" - Joan Jett, to new musicians.