I think that when it is all figured out the "new media" will be profitable to networks. I also think that the writers will be better off for all of the money that networks are spending on market research, site designs, even creative marketing with regard to this "new medium". I think the writers are early on their need to see their piece of the pie.
"while digital technology is enabling companies to start all sorts of new-media ventures, the profits have been elusive."
If we look back at the VCR we see that it was strongly opposed by most of the entertainment industry. We see that the perception was that money would be lost on the piracy of the "intellectual property".
"In the early '80s the movie industry fought the very existence of the VCR. (''The VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone,'' said Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America.) In 1984 the Supreme Court, by one vote, found VCRs not to be illegal tools of copyright infringement, and even Valenti now agrees that it has been a boon to profits through rentals - even though consumers can tape shows, watch them again and again, and even swap them with friends."
Playing Monday morning quarterback a bit, but maybe it would have been smart for the writers guild to have waited and gotten more information on the type of distribution the video tape would get before signing off on how they would be paid by it's production. I think the hard part here is that the "new media" is not even developed and may not be covered by the new contract that is being striken(?) over.
Seriously guys, get back to work you lazy assed half wits.
31 years old, married six years this summer, father of 1 and one on the way, and I'm a PC. (note "I am a PC" as I am not usually very P.C.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment