Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
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.
|
Again, this will never happen. Part of the reason movies are released in theaters is because that helps set the value of them. A movie that does well in theaters will command more viewers when it makes its way to regular TV and thus command a larger licensing fee. While movies that don't do as well don't command as big of fees.
So are you suggesting that the movie studios simply share in the revenue brought in from the commercials sold on their broadcasts? If not how do you determine the value of a movie and how much to charge for a licensing fee?
Quote:
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.
|
I think this is wishful thinking. Very few people would watch a movie on TV for free then pay $20 to go see it on the big screen. There might be a few people that would do this because there are people who pay to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but the number would be very small.
Quote:
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
|
Again I ask is this how you get 60 trillion/year of additional income into the economy as you stated before?
Quote:
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.
|
That is my point. You said all of this new revenue from the sale of technology (at least I am assuming this because you haven't said where this new revenue is coming from) would offset the loss in revenue due to piracy. The problem with this is that they are often two different companies so while one company gains, the other - the one producing the content- still loses.
Quote:
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.
|
As I said above this, to me, is all basically wishful thinking. There are some people who would be willing to pay just for the experience of a movie in the theater. I'm one of those people. There are some movies that come out that I just want to see on the big screen. But most movies it doesn't matter to me one way or the other and I would rather wait until it is on DVD and I can watch it at home instead of paying $10 to see it in the theater. If it were available on DVD/pay-per-view at the same time as the release in theaters I will still just get the DVD and in almost every case watching it on DVD would never convince me to now go pay more to watch it on the big screen.