Hollywood afraid of Microsoft 266
prostoalex writes "Associated Press claims that media industry has been quietly avoiding Microsoft and trying to keep the movie and music industries to their own. However, these days there's little chance of doing business without Microsoft and the movie studios are afraid of digital piracy more than they're afraid of Microsoft. The biggest fear? Microsoft will use its desktop PC monopoly to charge Hollywood outrageous fees and basically own the movie industry. Microsoft refutes the accusations, saying that it's only interested in selling more copies of Windows and applications for its platform, and providing movie content would promote the platform. Also noteworthy that among the four video-on-demand services that New York Times reviewed recently two that got the journalistic acclaim (StarzTicket and CinemaNow) are run by technology companies - Real Networks and Microsoft."
Polish in the Right Places (Score:5, Informative)
This is FUD. Microsoft can't own the movie industry because the movie industry doesn't even own the movie industry. The customers own the movie industry and if Hollywood continues putting out crap films, studio execs will only have themselves to blame for the fall of Hollywood. Obviously Microsoft doesn't want that to happen. They want to keep doing business with Hollywood and Microsoft is afraid of Open Source, so Billy's army of one will only have to start competing with Open Source in a way that is fair and honest (not "Best Practice", True Practice), or Microsoft too will only have themselves to blame when the palace of cards comes tumbling down.
I see some parallelism here between Hollywood and Microsoft. Both are too big for their own good and it's about time they realize it and start acting like they have something to lose if they don't change their tactics.
I just saw a Canadian movie today called Shot in the Face (2001) [imdb.com]. Yes the fans at IMDB give it an under-rated 5.6/10, but to me the film had a unique plot, interesting characters and it was fun -- it was just low budget, but it still brought a smile to my face. Obviously not A-list by any stretch of the imagination. My point is that large organizations take something unique out of films, and they also take something unique out of software and operating systems. Polish sometimes ruins things, and both these industries have ruined their products by either having too much polish in all the wrong places, or by have not enough polish in the places that matter.
Re:Hollywood and microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Linux will never make it to the desktops, the productivity applications will forever be 5+ years behind. But on the other side, in the render farms, Linux has already replaced more expensive solutions like SGI and Solaris. It's free, and it works just as well or better. People in charge of enormous corporations like that sort of thing.
The BBC isn't afraid... Hollywood could help them (Score:5, Informative)
DIRAC, the BBC-technology project to bring a new, royalty and patent free open source codec into life, has got to be worth looking into.
Surely someone with an ounce of intelligence in Hollywood could put 2+2 together and make 4. ie, Hollywood has money. DIRAC looks good, and could do with industry support and resources...
As our American cousins would say, "you do the math".
Re:The BBC isn't afraid... Hollywood could help th (Score:1, Informative)
http://developers.slashdot.org/article
Cory Doctorow Was All Over This (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a Microsoft customer. Like millions of other Microsoft customers, I want a player that plays anything I throw at it, and I think that you are just the company to give it to me.
Their paranoia is worth jack shit (Score:4, Informative)
Is there a chance that Microsoft will kill MPAA? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what, I quote:
For instance, If you go to Itunes and download a song for $.99, Apple retains about $.34 and the label receives about $.65. Labels then calculate a royalty base price to apply to the artists deal points. Following are some of the deductions:
a. A packaging fee (container cost) of up to, and sometimes more than, 25%. That's 25% of retail which is $.99 equaling about $.25 (by the way, there is no packaging on a digital download).
b. A 15% deduction for free goods. That's an additional $.15 or so. (There is usually no free goods with digital downloads unless someone is ripping it from the net.
That leaves a royalty base price of close to $.60 per track that the artists royalty is calculated against. If an artist receives 15 points in their deal (and remember, that's a very good deal) then he is entitled to aprox. $.09 a track. This is then cut in half because of the "new technology clause" that is incorporated into most deals. The artists royalty is then calced out at $.04-.05 a download and from that, 100% of it is withheld by the label to go towards recoupment of any advances to make the record, advances in general, tour support, radio promotion and other things in some cases. Most managers and producers are paid from record one and are paid regardless of the expenses, leaving the artists with even more of a recoupment burden before they start to see any income.
Quote ends. Suddenly hollywood people look like Mother Theresa.
Re:Hollywood fears Everything (Score:4, Informative)
I think if Hollywood was so afraid of losing money they would make more of the smaller films moderate casts and minimal expenses. I think Hollywood's fear of losing money pales in comparison to it's lust to make boatloads of it. That's why there's all the blockbusters with the big budgets, because if they are enormous sucesses, the money will flow and most are willing to take the risk of failure for the possibly of a huge success.
That said I think the biggest factor isn't money at all but power & ego and control. Sure money helps but it's the only way to get it. Why do the studios spend so much lobbying for the academy awards? They don't really make all that much more money for anyone, but it's all about the juice. Look at me! Look what I did!
Re:With good reason (Score:3, Informative)
They want Microsoft buy in so they can have customer lock-in. (Keep in mind, this is an industry that has already been broken up by Antitrust courts before. In addition to producing and distributing movies, they also used to own the theaters.)
Actually, Microsoft is a convicted monopoly (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hollywood and microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Big corporations with people in charge who have no understanding of modern technology or people don't view free software (or free anything) as "an abomination and unclean". They just view it with deep suspicion.
This is perfectly natural. If someone you had never seen before was giving away free burgers on the street you might view that with suspicion. If somebody approached you and said "here, take this truck - it's free" you would view that with suspicion too. You would be right to do so in both cases. The burger could of course be tainted meat and you could end up being poisoned. The truck will need gas and insurance, and could end up being rather expensive.
Big companies look at free software and think "this can't really be free - what's the catch?" They are right to ask that question. Often it is difficult to do a real cost-benefit analysis with free software, and so the free solution gets ruled out as its true cost is unknown. Unknown cost is riskier than expensive.
Re:Macintosh and the movies (art directors) (Score:3, Informative)
I worked in TV for a few years... Everyone had a Mac where I was...