It’s Not Silicon Valley Versus Hollywood – It’s Greed Versus Greed(meganhannay.com)
meganhannay.com
It’s Not Silicon Valley Versus Hollywood – It’s Greed Versus Greed
http://meganhannay.com/its-not-silicon-valley-versus-hollywood-its-greed-versus-greed/
5 comments
Indeed.
With regards to Hollywood film making, if you look at startups, you can be any gender or race, but as long as you bring your A-game, people will take you seriously.
In Hollywood, you have to be a very specific type to make it as a performer, otherwise you are relegated to working in the background to help create the movie OR fitting a stereotype to be part of a movie. In the last few years, the only Asian actors I've ever seen lead a 'Hollywood' movie without being relegated to action heros is Harold and Kumar.
With regards to Hollywood film making, if you look at startups, you can be any gender or race, but as long as you bring your A-game, people will take you seriously.
In Hollywood, you have to be a very specific type to make it as a performer, otherwise you are relegated to working in the background to help create the movie OR fitting a stereotype to be part of a movie. In the last few years, the only Asian actors I've ever seen lead a 'Hollywood' movie without being relegated to action heros is Harold and Kumar.
I am fairly certain that this reflects the wishes of the audience.
"And no one in Northern California addressed this issue, or led a charge to start paying for content."
Netflix? iTunes? Amazon? Hulu?
Once a cheap, frictionless, legal method is available then most people are happy to pay for content. Netflix, for me, is "better than free" as it cuts out the hassle, time and legal risk involved with less legitimate methods of downloading.
There's plenty of precedent for companies who try to do this, but the labels and studios are doing their best to make it as difficult as possible to innovate in this space.
Doesn't Ycombinator actively dissuade music-related startups because licensing is essentially impossible for smaller companies? Sure I remember reading that on their site recently.
Netflix? iTunes? Amazon? Hulu?
Once a cheap, frictionless, legal method is available then most people are happy to pay for content. Netflix, for me, is "better than free" as it cuts out the hassle, time and legal risk involved with less legitimate methods of downloading.
There's plenty of precedent for companies who try to do this, but the labels and studios are doing their best to make it as difficult as possible to innovate in this space.
Doesn't Ycombinator actively dissuade music-related startups because licensing is essentially impossible for smaller companies? Sure I remember reading that on their site recently.
You can't really include Hulu in that list since it is based out of LA (souther California) and was started by "Hollywood" via the TV networks.
Also, while it does match the spirit of what you are saying, most of Amazon is in Washington state rather than Northern California. (Not sure where exactly the video team is based.)
Also, while it does match the spirit of what you are saying, most of Amazon is in Washington state rather than Northern California. (Not sure where exactly the video team is based.)
You could assert that not paying $25 for a season of Weeds is a whole different ballgame than taking down a website with hundreds of millions of users.
I do so assert. One might constitute (need a trial) copyright infringement, not even theft. The second is an abridgement of human rights on a mass scale, something to be ashamed of, and something to shame others for doing.
I do so assert. One might constitute (need a trial) copyright infringement, not even theft. The second is an abridgement of human rights on a mass scale, something to be ashamed of, and something to shame others for doing.
[deleted]
If Hollywood is dying, it’s not because of lack of demand, it’s because of theft.
There's two things in this sentence that stick out to me:
1) "If Hollywood is dying". Is it? I recall more than one person arguing that Hollywood is making more money than it has in years past. Now, that may in fact still be a loss, if they're also paying more people than they were in the past --- unless the "made more money" is net rather than gross. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are dying. Well, then.
2) "it's because of theft." Is it? Is it really? I haven't seen their bank books. Are they loosing money because they're spending more money on special effects and not getting the returns they want, maybe? What shows are losing the most money? How many people watch them? How many pirate? What percentage of all people that watch that show/movie pirate it? What shows/movies are the big favorites? Do those shows/movies have a higher piracy-percentage than others?
Next thing. Movie theaters. Overpriced for the standard occasion. Did anyone evaluate if the price of a movie at a movie theater might actually be reducing attendance and thereby reducing profits? I recall this nice graph that compares supply vs demand; and I believe it can relay price vs value. Perhaps they're vastly exceeding the sweet spot.
Furthermore, we're in a recession. There are a ton of people out there without jobs. No job = less/no money. No money = ... spending your money on luxuries? Nope!
I'm sorry, but while it may in fact be greed vs greed, I cannot accept his argument that piracy is killing Hollywood. I need more data on the things I listed, especially where Hollywood is putting their money, and what the piracy percentage is. Until then, I do not accept that as the answer.
There's two things in this sentence that stick out to me:
1) "If Hollywood is dying". Is it? I recall more than one person arguing that Hollywood is making more money than it has in years past. Now, that may in fact still be a loss, if they're also paying more people than they were in the past --- unless the "made more money" is net rather than gross. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are dying. Well, then.
2) "it's because of theft." Is it? Is it really? I haven't seen their bank books. Are they loosing money because they're spending more money on special effects and not getting the returns they want, maybe? What shows are losing the most money? How many people watch them? How many pirate? What percentage of all people that watch that show/movie pirate it? What shows/movies are the big favorites? Do those shows/movies have a higher piracy-percentage than others?
Next thing. Movie theaters. Overpriced for the standard occasion. Did anyone evaluate if the price of a movie at a movie theater might actually be reducing attendance and thereby reducing profits? I recall this nice graph that compares supply vs demand; and I believe it can relay price vs value. Perhaps they're vastly exceeding the sweet spot.
Furthermore, we're in a recession. There are a ton of people out there without jobs. No job = less/no money. No money = ... spending your money on luxuries? Nope!
I'm sorry, but while it may in fact be greed vs greed, I cannot accept his argument that piracy is killing Hollywood. I need more data on the things I listed, especially where Hollywood is putting their money, and what the piracy percentage is. Until then, I do not accept that as the answer.
Silicon Valley Vs Hollywood = Old hat film making/distribution VS New hat film making and distribution.
That is all.
-edit-
And furthermore, they have almost completely rejected working together with anyone and sue their own customers in mass. All out of fear of cannibalizing their own profits. Essentially Hollywood refuses to innovate out of fear. I'm not into that so much.