or libertarians? or America-haters? or what exactly?
Please don't answer this question with scorn or emotionalism. It's an honest question. I'm genuinely curious how most slashdotters characterize their politics.
the Girls of Hawaiian Tropic and Staremagazine on SoSoHot.com
Launching very soon: a similar "free to the consumer" ad-supported program as we partner with INTENT Mediaworks, and various P2Ps like eDonkey and Bearshare.
Honestly, I was hoping for a more thoughtful response. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to answer your question forthrightly and civilly.
"I'm still not sure why you condone property theft."
I don't "condone theft" per se. However, I do believe that businesses should adjust to new realities, mostly for pragmatic reasons. For example, the MPAA and RIAA have long-adjusted to the reality that consumers of entertainment will use blank audio- and video-cassettes to record music and movies without having to pay for them. Before that, the music industry had to absorb the impact of radio. Even before that, they had to adjust to the advent of the phonograph.
I am simply suggesting that the entertainment industry as we know it today will eventually be forced to adjust to the age of P2P. If they don't, they are only contributing to their own demise. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Schwarzenegger DVD or a Streisand CD. I'm not as fixated on the politics as you appear to be. I'm just trying to be realistic. Do you seriously disagree with my position? If you do, what is your solution?
"Perhaps if Hollywood was viewed as a haven for righties you might feel differently"
Not at all, but I won't try to force the truth down your throat.
"Otherwise, fairly typical radcon response."
In all seriousness, how do you define "radcon", and what was so "radcon" about my earlier response? I'm genuinely curious.
No, actually, I had in mind people like Barbara Streisand, Ben Affleck, P Diddy, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken...should I go on?
"You mean like Halliburton?"
Well, I don't know Halliburton as well as you seem to. (Although if I had to guess, you probably don't know much beyond the standard Democrat talking points) But having said that, I don't like inefficienct oligopolistic behavior of any kind. If Halliburton is guilty of the same thing I charge of Hollywood, I have no desire to defend them.
But of course, we were talking about Hollywood and P2P. It would have been rather off-topic for me to bring up Halliburton.
"You're not a very good radcon, are you?"
No, I'm not. In fact, I'm not one at all. Well, then again, maybe I am. That is, based on your rather loose definition. Is a "radcon" someone who points out any instance of leftist hypocrisy? If we're bound to that foolish definition, I guess you're right. You win.
I could provide an example of rightist hypocrisy, if that makes you feel better. I'll do that next time, okay?
But of course, then, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get all emotional and strident.
Furthermore, while I admit that I'm NOT a "good" OR a "bad" "radcon", I must say that you do appear to be an excellent radlib. Thoughtless, knee-jerk, emotionalistic - typical.
"Hollywood is surviving in a free market already"
No one said they weren't, oh brilliant one. I was discussing the basis of Hollywood's fears RE: P2P. I guess you missed that.
"And I'm surprised that a radcon such as yourself would condone property theft."
I guess it's asking far too much of you to consider the possibility that you have hastily misdiagnosed my politics. So please, go ahead and have your fun with vaccuous invented words and narrow political concepts.
"No corporation is."
A ridiculous statement, but I can't say that I expected much more.
are no better than Hollywood, then we're all paying the price of inefficiency, one way or another.
"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."
If the situation was as hopelessly stagnant as you suggest, we would never hear those constant cries against "outsourcing" or the "loss of jobs to immigrant workers". If all the people of the Earth were working on an equally inefficient level, no one would have to fear competition from "cheaper" or "more efficient" workers.
"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."
If they have good sense, they will, esp. if the market pushes them toward a more efficacious place.
I don't see many html developers in 2004 trying to get the same amount of money for the same work they did in 1996, simply because today's state of affairs demands more.
Hollywood is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their cushy artificially inflated position. And yes, I'm absolutely convinced that they are worse than many other industries; they're definitely worse than the geek world.
At least the software business isn't staking its future on the outcomes of lawsuits against actual and/or potential customers.
Hollywood is, in essence, a huge artificially inflated market; quite possibly, the biggest scam in the free world. Ironically, some of the world's most celebrated leftists are worshipped in an industry that resembles a third-world country. In Hollywood, we can always witness a handful of rich elites juxtaposed with masses of impoverished starving artists and a rather nominally sized middle class who do whatever they have to do to remain in good standing with the elites.
Strange situation, when you consider how these guys are so famous for "caring" about the less fortunate, and so infamous for demeaning the "greed" of OTHER industries.
But just consider this: How irreplacable are the extras in those fast food commercials? How about the boom operators or the production assistants on those movie sets? Have you ever witnessed a Hollywood set in action? Can you believe the number of people who are, half the time, doing essentially nothing?
And no, it's not necessarily because the work they do requires the most unique skills.
If the culture of Hollywood weren't so fundamentally wasteful and profuse, more movies would get made, more people would get hired, and consumers overall would have more venues to enjoy a more robust selection of movies. Hell, just take a silly union like SAG out of the picture, and we'd see a difference overnight.
The central problem here, from Hollywood's point of view, is that the instantaneous "what you want, when you want" free market environment of the Web is intrinsically antagonistic to their culture. After all how many Hollywood productions would survive in a free market environment like the Internet? Far fewer than what we see today. I can guarantee that.
Hollywood isn't interested in free markets or anything similar. They want to continue producing as little as possible for as much money as possible. And the nature of the Internet threatens them at the most fundamental level.
If they have to sell the public and/or the governments a bill of goods like "Piracy is harming artists at all levels" or whatever, they will do so. If they have to sue everybody and their mother throughout the world, they'll do that, too. They'll do anything OTHER THAN adjust to the new environment.
Which is another way of saying that Hollywood's days could be numbered. Hollywood could easily become a shell of itself in a few generations if they don't wake up.
And yes, we are basically in agreement. But to answer your questions directly:
"But how many models are being used in a show? Can you afford to farm them all out to one person?"
If we have ten models and a team of six animators with lightning fast machines, we're home-free. We wouldn't hire guys who insisted on putting their triplets through college with one episode.
And I suspect that you already know that there's much talent out there that fits this description. i.e., actors, composers, animators, writers, producers, directors, etc., who simply want to make a decent living doing what they love, even if that only means "middle-class" wages.
Obviously, I've already assembled a tiny crew for our objectives, and they have the right attitude for sure.
"What'll stop them from jumping ship to work at another, more conventional studio?"
Excellent question, and I can't claim that I'm absolutely certain about the answer. However, I remain quite confident that the very shallow and politically-critical nature of other "more lucrative" opportunities, as well as a continuously growing roster of new equally-qualified talent, is enough to delay any "mass" exodus.
(And then, there's always "equity")
If I may expland the point: I think the coolest thing about the Internet era is the dramatic change in culture. Young people are generally accustomed to "short attention span" "on demand" "what you want, when you want" programming, and their concept of entertainment is far more encompassing. They don't even think of it as "novelty" - it's just normal.
This represents a portentous reality in my view. The old biz models don't work or fit in "the new world". Now admittedly, powerful oligopolies can force the old models to "work", but only for a limited time.
Frankly, I am convinced that recorded entertainment will be, in our lifetime, widely accepted as a generally free commodity that is used to sell other tangible products. It may not work out quite like that, but however it works out, current "Hollywood" economics would never survive in such an environment.
"But I think we need to be very careful about how we execute our projects, because the "mystique" is actually a large part of what makes something worth buying."
This is the part I totally agree with. But for some reason, the Internet's plethora of independently successful websites - not to mention the porn sites - strongly suggest to me a wealth of potential for Web-based indie TV distribution. Slashdot didn't need TechTV. Danni Ashe didn't need Playboy. It's gotta count for something.
I'm not sure how many people read slashdot, but I know it's a lot. Corecodec, afterdawn, etc., all attract millions of tech-savvy scifi-loving visitors every month. Especially since half of this audience would LOVE to spite "Hollywood". I repeat, it's gotta be the basis for something real when it comes to indie movie distribution.
But I wholeheartedly agree. Getting over the "mystique" is the tricky part by far.
The solution is right under your nose, my friend: More efficiently produced programming. Ditch Hollywood's insane economics for the more creative, more energetic - and better - independent producers who can do the same level of production that Hollywood does for a tenth of the costs.
http://melano.tv/Black_Sun_Video_Segment.avi
If we can do this kind of stuff for nothing, imagine what we can do for a tenth or a twentieth of the Hollywood budgets? We'd be thrilled to bring you the new Farscape for $500k an episode.
Keep an eye on us in 2005.
Plus, unlike alot of indies out there, we are not enthralled with the Hollywood "mystique". If the digital age decimates our current over-priced over-rated distribution system, and we all have to start all over again, so be it. Let the free market rock.
We're up for that challenge. "Hollywood" is the only one crying.
As far as the "stars" go, replace the old spoiled ones with new ones.
These geeks kill me sometimes! lol
They want excellent-paying jobs. They wanna be able to afford all the gadgetry in the world, but they don't want the producers of this technology to get rich.
Oh NO! Can't have that! lol
Kinda like the spolied brat programmers who complain about "outsourcing"? Are they like the Nigerian email scammers?
I guess it would be more palatable to you if Cuban sold his company for $1? Would you admire him more for that?
MPAA just sent me a subpoeana. I am guilty of calling a friend and telling them the Gigli was a piece of crap.
Oops! I'm a repaet offender. I called TWO friends.
Headed off to prison now. How will I answer to drug peddler who asks "What are you in for, huh?"
So what, if they gotta get a "regular job" like everybody else. Everybody esle adjusts to new market conditions. What makes them immune?
The biggest myth ever invented is the notion that only Hollywood can produce high-quality movies, and that their movies actually cost what they claim.
Thanks to technology, it's a bigger lie today than ever before.
We're currently selling short videos featuring Hawaiian Tropic models on Altnet/Kazaa. With all the excess footage that's already been shot, we could release a full-length HT video every month with different models, interviews, etc., for the next six months at least. Wanna know how much money all parties involved in this proposed project need to be happy? Total? $40,000. Maybe less.
Now, how much did they pay Ms. Rosen to run the RIAA? I'll bet it was more.
Also, please understand that there are thousands - if not millions - of creative people out there, just like us, who would love to establish the "middle-class income" bracket of the arts & entertainment industry. P2P can make this happen, and I promise you, it's the last movement on earth Hollywood wants to see come to fruition.
Now, imagine what this collective "we" could have done with the money Hollywood pissed away on Gigli, or a thousand other Hollywood "films". Probably establish a brand new cable network. Seriously.
Don't believe the hype, Slashdotters. If P2P stays alive and establishes synergy with all the independent creative eneergy out here - the kind that Hollywood skips over - consumers will have more choices, artists will have more opportunities and prices will be drasitcally cheaper per unit.
The only difference? Affleck et al will no longer be the beneficiaries of $12million checks for movies like Gigli.
Do THOSE guys need OUR pity? I don't THINK so. lol
and other excuses for entertainment and you won't have to worry about so-called piracy.
Feels great to see them dying a slow death.
Scenario, Year 2150: Mommy says to son while touring museum, "You see, Billy, back in the 20th Century, people used to buy music for $15 a collection!! They used to access their music on little round things called CDs!" Billy says, "Mommy, what's a Metallica?"
Commercial entertainers and artists have different objectives. There are enough artists out there, to keep the rest of us entertained. Movies, music, etc. will get produced regardless of the commercial potential. Hollywood is bitching because they can't envision the continued stream the sick money they're accustomed to making in a broadband Internet, "anybody can be a filmmaker with a camcorder and editing program" world. They better go to church if they're looking for sympathy.
Nothing gets pirated more than software. What kept them from turning into a bunch of "you-know-whats"? It's not our fault if they can't adjust to free market forces. The public isn't here to babysit Hollywood when they fail to keep up with the times.
Who COULDN'T make a movie for $150million? Why are we impressed when Hollywood makes movies for millions of dollars? It's called profligate spending. So their gravy train is finally crumbling brick by brick, and nobody really gives a crap. This is great news for the rest of us. Too many crybabies in this world as it is.
Our partners at www.melano.tv created a Sci-Fi short on a Mac for $2k and it looks better than everything on the SCFI channel since they cancelled Farscape. Give them a million bucks and they'll make all the freakin' X-Men movies you want!
Hollywood is trying to protect their artificial market. Let them eat cake.
They stay in business by controlling and monopolizing the distribution channels. Take that away, and they are a worthless entity. We just need the artists to understand that. If they do, music CDs will cost $2-3, or online downloads will cost $.10 a song or less, which is what they should have been costing anyway. This is all about useless people attempting to justify their worth in an Internet-based digital economy. They will lose this war within five years.
are still online trading. Are they undaunted, insane or looking for a fight?
Can the RIAA sue non-Americans? What are they gonna due? Extradite Brits for file-sharing?
We know there's promise in the potential of legal P2P distribution. Look for our ongoing series of video shorts featuring Hawaiian Tropic models on Kazaa/Altnet (Keyword: Girls of Hawaiian Tropic)
And we're not alone. I would hate to see the RIAA screw it up for "legitimate" distributors, too.
SoSoHot.com
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't answer this question with scorn or emotionalism. It's an honest question. I'm genuinely curious how most slashdotters characterize their politics.
Launching very soon: a similar "free to the consumer" ad-supported program as we partner with INTENT Mediaworks, and various P2Ps like eDonkey and Bearshare.
sample: http://www.offthepeer.com/Shared/stare-sosohot.wmv
Keep an eye on us, SoSoHot.com
"I'm still not sure why you condone property theft."
I don't "condone theft" per se. However, I do believe that businesses should adjust to new realities, mostly for pragmatic reasons. For example, the MPAA and RIAA have long-adjusted to the reality that consumers of entertainment will use blank audio- and video-cassettes to record music and movies without having to pay for them. Before that, the music industry had to absorb the impact of radio. Even before that, they had to adjust to the advent of the phonograph.
I am simply suggesting that the entertainment industry as we know it today will eventually be forced to adjust to the age of P2P. If they don't, they are only contributing to their own demise. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Schwarzenegger DVD or a Streisand CD. I'm not as fixated on the politics as you appear to be. I'm just trying to be realistic. Do you seriously disagree with my position? If you do, what is your solution?
"Perhaps if Hollywood was viewed as a haven for righties you might feel differently"
Not at all, but I won't try to force the truth down your throat.
"Otherwise, fairly typical radcon response."
In all seriousness, how do you define "radcon", and what was so "radcon" about my earlier response? I'm genuinely curious.
No, actually, I had in mind people like Barbara Streisand, Ben Affleck, P Diddy, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken...should I go on?
"You mean like Halliburton?"
Well, I don't know Halliburton as well as you seem to. (Although if I had to guess, you probably don't know much beyond the standard Democrat talking points) But having said that, I don't like inefficienct oligopolistic behavior of any kind. If Halliburton is guilty of the same thing I charge of Hollywood, I have no desire to defend them.
But of course, we were talking about Hollywood and P2P. It would have been rather off-topic for me to bring up Halliburton.
"You're not a very good radcon, are you?"
No, I'm not. In fact, I'm not one at all. Well, then again, maybe I am. That is, based on your rather loose definition. Is a "radcon" someone who points out any instance of leftist hypocrisy? If we're bound to that foolish definition, I guess you're right. You win.
I could provide an example of rightist hypocrisy, if that makes you feel better. I'll do that next time, okay?
But of course, then, you wouldn't have the opportunity to get all emotional and strident.
Furthermore, while I admit that I'm NOT a "good" OR a "bad" "radcon", I must say that you do appear to be an excellent radlib. Thoughtless, knee-jerk, emotionalistic - typical.
"Hollywood is surviving in a free market already"
No one said they weren't, oh brilliant one. I was discussing the basis of Hollywood's fears RE: P2P. I guess you missed that.
"And I'm surprised that a radcon such as yourself would condone property theft."
I guess it's asking far too much of you to consider the possibility that you have hastily misdiagnosed my politics. So please, go ahead and have your fun with vaccuous invented words and narrow political concepts.
"No corporation is."
A ridiculous statement, but I can't say that I expected much more.
"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."
If the situation was as hopelessly stagnant as you suggest, we would never hear those constant cries against "outsourcing" or the "loss of jobs to immigrant workers". If all the people of the Earth were working on an equally inefficient level, no one would have to fear competition from "cheaper" or "more efficient" workers.
"say 90% efficiency...No people will work like that."
If they have good sense, they will, esp. if the market pushes them toward a more efficacious place.
I don't see many html developers in 2004 trying to get the same amount of money for the same work they did in 1996, simply because today's state of affairs demands more.
Hollywood is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their cushy artificially inflated position. And yes, I'm absolutely convinced that they are worse than many other industries; they're definitely worse than the geek world.
At least the software business isn't staking its future on the outcomes of lawsuits against actual and/or potential customers.
Strange situation, when you consider how these guys are so famous for "caring" about the less fortunate, and so infamous for demeaning the "greed" of OTHER industries.
But just consider this: How irreplacable are the extras in those fast food commercials? How about the boom operators or the production assistants on those movie sets? Have you ever witnessed a Hollywood set in action? Can you believe the number of people who are, half the time, doing essentially nothing?
And no, it's not necessarily because the work they do requires the most unique skills.
If the culture of Hollywood weren't so fundamentally wasteful and profuse, more movies would get made, more people would get hired, and consumers overall would have more venues to enjoy a more robust selection of movies. Hell, just take a silly union like SAG out of the picture, and we'd see a difference overnight.
The central problem here, from Hollywood's point of view, is that the instantaneous "what you want, when you want" free market environment of the Web is intrinsically antagonistic to their culture. After all how many Hollywood productions would survive in a free market environment like the Internet? Far fewer than what we see today. I can guarantee that.
Hollywood isn't interested in free markets or anything similar. They want to continue producing as little as possible for as much money as possible. And the nature of the Internet threatens them at the most fundamental level.
If they have to sell the public and/or the governments a bill of goods like "Piracy is harming artists at all levels" or whatever, they will do so. If they have to sue everybody and their mother throughout the world, they'll do that, too. They'll do anything OTHER THAN adjust to the new environment.
Which is another way of saying that Hollywood's days could be numbered. Hollywood could easily become a shell of itself in a few generations if they don't wake up.
Which would suit me just fine. =)
Gets old afer several thousand years. No other country has an ego, right? lol
"But how many models are being used in a show? Can you afford to farm them all out to one person?"
If we have ten models and a team of six animators with lightning fast machines, we're home-free. We wouldn't hire guys who insisted on putting their triplets through college with one episode.
And I suspect that you already know that there's much talent out there that fits this description. i.e., actors, composers, animators, writers, producers, directors, etc., who simply want to make a decent living doing what they love, even if that only means "middle-class" wages.
Obviously, I've already assembled a tiny crew for our objectives, and they have the right attitude for sure.
"What'll stop them from jumping ship to work at another, more conventional studio?"
Excellent question, and I can't claim that I'm absolutely certain about the answer. However, I remain quite confident that the very shallow and politically-critical nature of other "more lucrative" opportunities, as well as a continuously growing roster of new equally-qualified talent, is enough to delay any "mass" exodus.
(And then, there's always "equity")
If I may expland the point: I think the coolest thing about the Internet era is the dramatic change in culture. Young people are generally accustomed to "short attention span" "on demand" "what you want, when you want" programming, and their concept of entertainment is far more encompassing. They don't even think of it as "novelty" - it's just normal.
This represents a portentous reality in my view. The old biz models don't work or fit in "the new world". Now admittedly, powerful oligopolies can force the old models to "work", but only for a limited time.
Frankly, I am convinced that recorded entertainment will be, in our lifetime, widely accepted as a generally free commodity that is used to sell other tangible products. It may not work out quite like that, but however it works out, current "Hollywood" economics would never survive in such an environment.
"But I think we need to be very careful about how we execute our projects, because the "mystique" is actually a large part of what makes something worth buying." This is the part I totally agree with. But for some reason, the Internet's plethora of independently successful websites - not to mention the porn sites - strongly suggest to me a wealth of potential for Web-based indie TV distribution. Slashdot didn't need TechTV. Danni Ashe didn't need Playboy. It's gotta count for something. I'm not sure how many people read slashdot, but I know it's a lot. Corecodec, afterdawn, etc., all attract millions of tech-savvy scifi-loving visitors every month. Especially since half of this audience would LOVE to spite "Hollywood". I repeat, it's gotta be the basis for something real when it comes to indie movie distribution.
But I wholeheartedly agree. Getting over the "mystique" is the tricky part by far.
But it ain't impossible.
The solution is right under your nose, my friend: More efficiently produced programming. Ditch Hollywood's insane economics for the more creative, more energetic - and better - independent producers who can do the same level of production that Hollywood does for a tenth of the costs.
http://melano.tv/Black_Sun_Video_Segment.avi
If we can do this kind of stuff for nothing, imagine what we can do for a tenth or a twentieth of the Hollywood budgets? We'd be thrilled to bring you the new Farscape for $500k an episode.
Keep an eye on us in 2005.
Plus, unlike alot of indies out there, we are not enthralled with the Hollywood "mystique". If the digital age decimates our current over-priced over-rated distribution system, and we all have to start all over again, so be it. Let the free market rock.
We're up for that challenge. "Hollywood" is the only one crying.
As far as the "stars" go, replace the old spoiled ones with new ones.
These geeks kill me sometimes! lol They want excellent-paying jobs. They wanna be able to afford all the gadgetry in the world, but they don't want the producers of this technology to get rich. Oh NO! Can't have that! lol
Kinda like the spolied brat programmers who complain about "outsourcing"? Are they like the Nigerian email scammers? I guess it would be more palatable to you if Cuban sold his company for $1? Would you admire him more for that?
We almost had the perfect story to stick it to the RIAA.
Be patient. One of these cases is gonna bite them in the butt. And I can't wait to see it.
Make an example out of her. Hell, might as well hang her mom, too.
For the record, this is sarcasm.
MPAA just sent me a subpoeana. I am guilty of calling a friend and telling them the Gigli was a piece of crap. Oops! I'm a repaet offender. I called TWO friends. Headed off to prison now. How will I answer to drug peddler who asks "What are you in for, huh?"
An even cheaper way to get footage. =)
So what, if they gotta get a "regular job" like everybody else. Everybody esle adjusts to new market conditions. What makes them immune? The biggest myth ever invented is the notion that only Hollywood can produce high-quality movies, and that their movies actually cost what they claim.
Thanks to technology, it's a bigger lie today than ever before.
We're currently selling short videos featuring Hawaiian Tropic models on Altnet/Kazaa. With all the excess footage that's already been shot, we could release a full-length HT video every month with different models, interviews, etc., for the next six months at least. Wanna know how much money all parties involved in this proposed project need to be happy? Total? $40,000. Maybe less.
Now, how much did they pay Ms. Rosen to run the RIAA? I'll bet it was more.
Also, please understand that there are thousands - if not millions - of creative people out there, just like us, who would love to establish the "middle-class income" bracket of the arts & entertainment industry. P2P can make this happen, and I promise you, it's the last movement on earth Hollywood wants to see come to fruition.
Now, imagine what this collective "we" could have done with the money Hollywood pissed away on Gigli, or a thousand other Hollywood "films". Probably establish a brand new cable network. Seriously.
Don't believe the hype, Slashdotters. If P2P stays alive and establishes synergy with all the independent creative eneergy out here - the kind that Hollywood skips over - consumers will have more choices, artists will have more opportunities and prices will be drasitcally cheaper per unit.
The only difference? Affleck et al will no longer be the beneficiaries of $12million checks for movies like Gigli.
Do THOSE guys need OUR pity? I don't THINK so. lol
SoSoHot.com
and other excuses for entertainment and you won't have to worry about so-called piracy. Feels great to see them dying a slow death. Scenario, Year 2150: Mommy says to son while touring museum, "You see, Billy, back in the 20th Century, people used to buy music for $15 a collection!! They used to access their music on little round things called CDs!" Billy says, "Mommy, what's a Metallica?"
We're currently selling videos featuring Hawaiian Tropic models via Altnet/Kazaa, and we will soon be launching original Sci-Fi from Melano.TV
Just looking for synergy from the gaming world if there's any there.
godivx
SoSoHot.com, etc.
Let the RIAA watch their sales fall when that starts to happen.
Commercial entertainers and artists have different objectives. There are enough artists out there, to keep the rest of us entertained. Movies, music, etc. will get produced regardless of the commercial potential. Hollywood is bitching because they can't envision the continued stream the sick money they're accustomed to making in a broadband Internet, "anybody can be a filmmaker with a camcorder and editing program" world. They better go to church if they're looking for sympathy.
Nothing gets pirated more than software. What kept them from turning into a bunch of "you-know-whats"? It's not our fault if they can't adjust to free market forces. The public isn't here to babysit Hollywood when they fail to keep up with the times.
Maybe you should re-think and/or at least question the usurious nature of your record contracts.
Our partners at www.melano.tv created a Sci-Fi short on a Mac for $2k and it looks better than everything on the SCFI channel since they cancelled Farscape. Give them a million bucks and they'll make all the freakin' X-Men movies you want!
Hollywood is trying to protect their artificial market. Let them eat cake.
They stay in business by controlling and monopolizing the distribution channels. Take that away, and they are a worthless entity. We just need the artists to understand that. If they do, music CDs will cost $2-3, or online downloads will cost $.10 a song or less, which is what they should have been costing anyway. This is all about useless people attempting to justify their worth in an Internet-based digital economy. They will lose this war within five years.
are still online trading. Are they undaunted, insane or looking for a fight? Can the RIAA sue non-Americans? What are they gonna due? Extradite Brits for file-sharing? We know there's promise in the potential of legal P2P distribution. Look for our ongoing series of video shorts featuring Hawaiian Tropic models on Kazaa/Altnet (Keyword: Girls of Hawaiian Tropic) And we're not alone. I would hate to see the RIAA screw it up for "legitimate" distributors, too. SoSoHot.com