Flash Problem

[Marcel Rieux]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 20:29 -0500, Marcel Rieux wrote:
>> Because of DRM, it even seems unsure the BBC itself will use it:
>>
>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/22/bbc-drm-cory-doctorow>
>
> Interesting, but the usual journalistic hyperbole.

Hyperbole is not usual in journalism.

As for the rest, since I'm not an expert, I prefer to deal with simple
matters such as when the CBC offer content that is inaccessible with
Flash for Linux... and working towards open formats.

This said, I'm pretty much siding with Alan. It's pretty clear that
the DTLA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. If they're given
their way, Linux will undoubtedly suffer.

> "the BBC is trying to leverage its broadcast licence into control over
> the devices that can receive broadcasts. That is, in addition to
> deciding what shows to put on the air, the Beeb wants the power to
> decide what kinds of tellies and set-top boxes will be able to display
> and record those shows – and it wants the power to control the design of
> all the devices that might be plugged into a TV or set-top box. This is
> an unprecedented amount of power for a broadcaster to have."
>
> Um, no, that's not unprecedented.  It was how television was invented.

Here, I can't even understand what you could possibly mean by this.
All the manufacturers had to comply to is the specifications of a
country, NTSC, PAL and SECAM, for instance. It had nothing to do with
limiting access.

> "DTLA licenses a wide variety of devices to move, display, record, and
> make limited copies of video. Which programmes can be recorded, how many
> copies, how long recordings can last and other restrictions are set
> within the system. To receive a licence, manufacturers must promise to
> honour these restrictions."
>
> No biggy, but it's always overlooked that you do have to restrict
> dissemination of your material.  You make it, you sell it, you pay
> people and fund more productions with the profits.  The restriction
> doesn't have to be absolute, though, merely reasonable.

No doubt we would have more $10,000,000 and less $400,000,000 productions
such as Avatar. In this case, maybe it wouldn't be such a loss :)
Maybe actors would have to work 5 days a week for $100,000 a year,
instead of 3 million for 3 weeks. Maybe small producers would have a
fair chance of getting to the market. It would be another world. And
maybe investors in the film industry would see their return on
investment diminish.

But whatever happens in Hollywood, this is bound to happen. Slumdog
Millionaire costed $15.1 million and grossed $377,417,293.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=slumdogmillionaire.htm

No famous actors. Mainly slum kids and a few not so well know actors.
(Citizen Kane was filmed with a troupe of unknown professional
actors.)  Some day Bollywood, which is already a largest film producer
than Hollywood, is bound to learn how to write a decent scenario.
There's also a film industry in China...

Are you sure that DRMs are not only the last hiccups of a dying
industry? Wouldn't it be better for itself to adapt?

You're aware, I suppose, that very good quality films are now filmed
with "still" digital cameras. They cost $10,000, but it's much cheaper
than an Arriflex film camera, believe me.

So, we got lots of productions, some good and much more crap, from this
billion dollars film and music star system industry but what it made
us miss is what most people aren't aware of.

Right now, Apple is offering singles at $1.29 without DRM. The Majors
get a huge portion of this. It seems people copying this music is not
such an objection. Of course, anybody offering this music on the web
would be immediately sued and who would lose his time to burn and sell
DVDs, mainly that it could a wonderful way to disseminate viruses.

If films showed in theatres for six months and then were made
available on the net for, say, $5, maybe it would be a working
economic model.