Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
What I meant is that they are giving it away to the viewer. How much do you think the studios would want from TV networks to show a movie like Avatar or Iron Man 2 on free TV? The amount they would demand in payment would be so high that the commercials would have cost as much ore more than super bowl commercials.
Not to mention they would have to edit the movie for content if it rated above PG. Some might say that is a selling point, if you want the unedited version you can pay for it, but I don't think TV stations are going to want to pay a premium price for content that is edited and available still in theaters.
As I said, this is never going to happen. First run movies will never be available on free TV on the same day they are released in theaters.
|
think about for a second if access shifting becomes a fair use right
then preventing it from being release on a medium would be just as legitimate at trying to prevent sony from making vcrs.
The act of charging insane liciencing fees for tv distribution would allow the tv stations to air the content for free.
They will make their money back from product placement/ etc.
really big movies like iron man will not have a problem,
the theaters would have it in 3d and be able to charge $20
the tv appearance would be an upsell to the "real" experience in the theater it would not be that hard to do if the theaters were a true technologically superior offering of the movie.
Quote:
|
I would say Tivo and DVRs forced cable companies to ramp up their on demand services. The VCR can record one show at a time and is not terribly easy to use. The DVR and Tivo are a breeze to use and many of them you can record more than one show at a time.
|
tivo and dvr are simply direvations of the original vcr
if the timeshifting fair use had never been established then these devices would not have been legal either.
Quote:
|
Broadcast TV stations might have made more by forcing you to watch reruns, but companies like HBO, Showtime and other premium pay services actually make more money with On Demand because it allows subscribers to watch the show whenever they want. For them it is different than regular TV because there are no advertisers to make happy, they just want people to keep paying the $15 a month for their channels.
|
and how likely do you think any of those stations would exist if the viewing hours were limited to original broadcast and reruns
people watching their favorite shows at non prime time times is what made the tv stations realize there was more programing time available
ever increasing viewing times cause specialty channels to be created.
Quote:
Where do you get this 60 trillion dollar number? Are you saying that simply selling new technology to the consumer will add 60 trillion/ year to the US economy?
You can have all the best equipment in the world and it won't stop people from downloading a movie for free. Many people who have the money to spend on high end AV gear want media that allows them to take advantage of it. They will pay for Blu Ray or for HD pay per view etc. This has no effect on the guy who has a normal TV and no surround sound who wants to download a copy of Iron Man 2 because he doesn't want to pay for it.
|
when dolby surround sound first hit the market it only existed in the movie theater
home sound systems did not exist
movies needed special equipment to record /edit the multi channel sound signal
you need to use editing software and equipement to downgrade multichannel signal into the single /stereo channel signal most people actually had
that technology existed only in the movies and as cost came down it appeared in the home market, bringing new sales for the content producers (dvd,Blue ray, etc)
same would happen in the case of access shifting
Quote:
|
Even if knew technology sales helped cover the cost of piracy losses they are often two different companies. Panasonic selling more TV's doesn't help Paramount recoup losses due to downloading.
|
paramount is not entitled to money from the sale of panasonic tv etc just because they produced the content
just like universal was not entitled to the profits from the sale of the vcr
paramount would earn it profits from medium distribution of the content just like universal earned money from putting their movies on the tape cassette and selling it to the owners of the vcr.
Quote:
Let me make sure I have this correct. You are saying that if a company releases their movie in theaters, on pay-per-view, on DVD and on pay per download, but not on free TV then those who wanted it on free TV should be allowed to just download it for free because their fair use rights would be violated and somehow allows this to happen is going to create 60 trillion/year in new income.
Please explain.
|
those that adapt to the new market condition
shoot in six spectrum 8 bit color and downgrade their content to the lower mediums will survive
those that hang on to the old 3 spectrum 8 bit color will die
competition will breed the new income (see above).
if theaters had 2^ 48 colors while regular tv only had 2^24 and the content was actually shot in 2^48 and downgraded to regular tv viewing
you would have amazing effects in the theater that would
- would make it worth while to go to the theater even if the content was released at the same time on other mediums
- technologically impossible to duplicate with "cheap" recording devices
short term profits would drop as people would not want to see movies that are only marginally better because 256R256G was replaced with 256Y256Y
but when the content is filmed in 6 spectrum color then you would add all the combinations of true yellow with all the other colors (ie 256R256Y) the picture in the theater would be so true to life it would be worth paying a premium to see.