JT> The popular music, and more recently the movie industry has
JT> not, does not, and likely never will understand technology.

JT> They pretend by trying to "embrace" it, but they're so
JT> hoplessly lost in it all, that they're resorting to what they
JT> _do_ understand. The courts. 

 I think they understand the technology all right, but they can't get
used to the idea that their entire industry had gone obsolete. It must
be a nightmare for Sony, to get really excited by DVDs, and here we
are two years on, selling recording-DVDs with inbuilt hard drive for
$500. It must break their hearts...

 The publishing industry and copyright itself has run its course.
Music and video entertainment is going to change, but no one knows
which way it will go. The source of the money is the artist, and the
idea of the media  publisher making the big bucks is a recent
invention, courtesy of Colonel Tom. Michelangelo made his money on
commission from the Pope, no copyright, but Elvis made his as a
by-product of Colonel Tom, TV, Radio, Movies, RCA Victor, copyright
and lawyers. *They* made the big bucks because Elvis had no direct
access to the mass market. Copyright did not protect the artist; it
protected the publisher.

 But what happens now, when publishers are irrelevant?

 It does not matter a rat's arse if middle men exist or not... but we
do need a way to get the artist across to his market, to have his
music promoted and heard - and sold. The Internet gets the music
across, but where is the money coming from? How does a good artist get
preference over the million who are crap? Who pays for complex
products like movies and albums that take months to produce?

 That's what the movie and music industry does not understand, and
in the meantiem all they can do is pay lawyers to stick their fingers
in the internet dyke.

JT> Too bad for them, they don't understand their client base
JT> either, so are effectivly killing the hand that feeds them too.

JT> The porn industry on the other hand knows it well. Possibly the
JT> most pirated shit you could find anywhere, yet never heard of a
JT> case where a porno outfit sued someone for copyright (I think
JT> millions of years of prior art has them beat on that one
JT> though) yet is still a booming industry. -- 

 That's something I have never understood. SHREK cost a small fortune
in promotion, but BUMBANDIT JERKOFF has no promotion at all. I think
the answer is that SHREK cost $50M and BUMBANDITS-11 only cost $5,000.
SHREK has to fill 5-million sets to break even, but once they sell
1,000 BUMBANDITS they don't give a shit if they never sell another,
they just make BUMBANDITS-12... same story, different bums.

 Pesonally, I wouldn't like to lose SHREK, especially if all we have
left for light entertainment is the hope of BUMBANDITS-13.

Regards,
Bob
   

 

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5