I've been hearing more and more about entertainment studios and cable providers using muscle (in the form of property rights to popular movies and TV shows) to influence and control the evolution of the internet as a media delivery platform.
Netflix has been unable to negotiate much new content for their streaming service. It's sounding as though studios are playing hardball, trying to reduce netflixes threat as an alternative to traditional service.
Hulu (which was created by entertainment studios like NBC) may soon begin requiring cable subscriptions in order to access content.
Although there is no technological barrier, it is not possible to order cable service ala carte, picking which channels you'd like, and paying a flat fee per channel.
If this is the case, and the media giants are trying to "squash" the little guy of independent, internet based media, in order to protect the current business model, then...
1) Is that a problem? Is there something "wrong", or at least regressive, with that picture?
2) Does it indicate a problem with the "market-based" system of capitalism? Where big guys can control or prevent the "march of progress" as it were?
3) If so, should something be done? CAN something be done, without violating fundamental rights to property or commerce?
4) What entity should take action? Should the government intervene?
This is a topic that I find interesting, and pressing, but one which I don't have an answer to. I've been wanting to write for the last couple of weeks, but haven't felt like "lecturing". So, let's mix it up a bit. I'd like to farm this out to the "brain trust" of my readers. Let me know what you think, and I'm hoping this will spark a discussion, and some interesting conclusions.
1. I'm not sure that's an easy one, but I'm going to say it's not totally wrong that they're trying to squash them. I will say, I don't approve of collusion to do it. Let them be honest. So to rephrase....maybe.
ReplyDelete2. Does this indicate a problem with the system. I don't think it does.
They're holding it up, sure. But the march of progress isn't going to be stopped. All they're doing is something we're willing to give them money for (they being Time Warner among others).
3. Should something be done. Yes. Can something be done, yes.
4. What can and should be done is exactly what is happening. Hulu, Netflix and others are coming up with their own content. They're competing, and I think they'll win eventually. Things like Josh Weedon's Dr. Horrible and other web based projects are starting to get funding and take off.
I've oversimplified much here, but I think that's ok. I think the free market makes things annoying sometimes, inconvenient. But I still think it works.
I think I'm pretty much in agreement, here. I think studios and content providers may have some sort of "trust" type relationship going on that may not be totally legal, but the content that they produce is expensive, and they deserve to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I think the way it'll play out is that piracy will rise until they embrace the "new" way of doing things, which may entail a loss of profit. Making shows and selling shows will stay the same, but the medium of how to transmit shows is changing. A good analogy might be the music industry. They made OUTRAGEOUS profits on albums, tapes and CD's until piracy of MP3s began. There was a concerted effort to stamp that out, which failed, and eventually they embraced the new model, and today we can buy songs individually for a buck a piece.
I've read somewhere that studios and content providers should start viewing piracy as just another form of competition. Right now they're winning, and why shouldn't they be? Piracy offers a high level convenience to its "customers" while the former two cling to dying business models. Why should anyone pay fifteen dollars for a CD filled with nine horrible songs and one good one when the song you actually want is only a download away? Why dish out twenty bucks for a movie you'll watch once or twice when p2p networking offers it for free?
ReplyDeleteAs for larger companies trying to squash smaller companies like Netflix, well, isn't that the nature of capitalism? Netflix must neither figure out a way to offer its product and offer it better than its competitors, or it will lose out. Likewise, the larger companies can do as they please with their intellectual property. They need not offer it to Netflix if they'd rather hold down they fort on their outdated models.