They are having record breaking revenue years in 2009 and 2010. It's not like they are suffering the downtown that the newspaper industry has and they don't have nearly the legal protections that Hollywood has and while they are struggling, they are adapting.
If Hollywood were to take a new approach to entertainment, who's to say they wouldn't be having even higher revenue than they are having now? It just seems like a fix for a problem that doesn't exist.
So, I've been thinking. I know the whole "don't attribute to malice..." line, but isn't it possible that SOPA is an effort by big media to control all online content? Is there anything in the proposed laws that mandates rights-holders actively pursue violators? (Trademark law does have this requirement.)
Could SOPA be used as a tool to weaken content-driven tech startups, until they can either be shut down or scooped up at bargain basement prices by a studio? Would it be completely inconceivable that an industry guilty of payola (multiple times over) might collude to use SOPA only target web properties not owned by an RIAA/MPAA member?
Hell, I don't even think collusion would be required. All it would take is a massive cross-licensing deal covering online media. Then BAM! You're logging on to Sony Facebook or sharing a link on Twitter by TimeWarner. What if the true targets of SOPA aren't the pirates, but rather the small tech startups that have been making so much noise about how harmful passage would be to their business model. The small tech startups that aren't so small anymore and, day by day, are looking more and more like the future of content.
I begin to wonder if the studios are not so ignorant of technology trends as we might hope, but rather see a way to ensure that our computer screens are controlled by the same groups that control our television and movie theater screens...
Those small tech startups are exploiting a loophole in the law to allow them to monetize the studios' content. There is nothing unethical about monopolizing access to content you create.
Think of how profitable cable & satellite TV is now. If they applied that model of guaranteed revenue to the entire Internet, and eliminated piracy 100% with SOPA II, they will make hundreds billions of dollars more.
This is not about stopping piracy, it's about gaining control and a market of guaranteed revenue regardless of the junk they put out through it. In other words, this sinister conspiracy you suggest is just in fact good business, they 100% know about technology trends and thus is why they seek to control, manipulate and police the Internet at this early stage rather when it's too late to take it over.
Hanlon's razor (aka "cock-up before conspiracy") is nothing more than an opinion. Whether we should regard selfishness as malice or not is beside the point, but it is quite clear to me that people in general often act out of selfishness!!
This is so clear to me, that I am convinced that Hanlon's razor is utter hogwash (because I do actually think that selfishness and malice are simply one and the same and furthermore when someone "screws up" it's often because they were being selfish with regards to the use of their attention (e.g. texting while driving)).
Thanks for digging up that info. Was just about to reach for my favourite search engine to find evidence that Hollywood, in fact, is not dying.
Regardless of the sensationalist title of the article, I agree with it's point of view.
1. http://the-numbers.com/movies/records/ 2. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/2010-box-office-more-r...
They are having record breaking revenue years in 2009 and 2010. It's not like they are suffering the downtown that the newspaper industry has and they don't have nearly the legal protections that Hollywood has and while they are struggling, they are adapting.
If Hollywood were to take a new approach to entertainment, who's to say they wouldn't be having even higher revenue than they are having now? It just seems like a fix for a problem that doesn't exist.