I was reading over an article on BBC News on the state of the music business.
Film people never like comparisons between us and them (Music vs. Film), but I find them useful. Film vets dismiss the comparison of Music vs. Film over a couple of issues: 1) cost of motion picture production; 2) cost of motion picture marketing; 3) cost of the product; and 4) length of time required to listen/watch. You can hear a song in two minutes for free and have a complete experience.
I think dismissing the comparison often comes down to seeing the Film Biz as 100% Hollywood. It’s true that’s where the money is made these days (outside of distinct national industries and genres), but we do have potential to develop a true alternative now — that is provided the internet can remain truly free and neutral.
In the BBC article, they cite a panel that took place between Jazz Summers, the manage of The Verve (and a proponent of artists’ control of copyright) and Lyor Cohen, the head of Warner Music (and a proponent of corporate control). Cohen stated the big money perspective:
“It’s very important for us to own those rights if we are going to have an infrastructure around the world of thousands of people, if we’re going to invest in new artists to create new music and promote and market it.”
Cohen’s perspective is also the Big Money Perspective on Film. But here’s where it’s important to recognize the difference between Big Money Hollywood & Traditional Indie/Specialized on one hand and Truly Free Film culture on the other.
Truly Free Film will be built on collective endeavor and an open source perspective on information and information sharing. Those attitudes and subsequent action will build a new infrastructure that will allow Truly Free Film artists to earn a living. The Truly Free Film Culture infrastructure will not be dependent on Mega-Corp investment.
In a Truly Free Film Culture, there is no argument for anyone other than the artists owning their copyrights, or at least sharing in them with their investors.
