From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 13:39:27 MST
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, John K Clark wrote:
> Well maybe, but most of them sure don't act like they're benefiting, most
> musicians seem pretty upset.
A few high-profile musicians might be upset. My heart bleeds for them.
Really. 99.99% of all musicians weren't asked, and they don't have
anything to lose, only to win. Look at http://mp3.com (don't go to
ogg.com, oh no) for a change.
> > I suspect the same thing will happen to movies
>
> A movie can easily cost 100 million to make, you can't equal that in your
> garage, at least not yet.
Given a worst case, would the world truly end if we only would see only
low-budget independants instead of the usual Hollywood pabulum? I don't
see what is so expensive about movies if you cut out $$$ for the stars,
promotion, distribution, special fx, and the gazillion of support crew.
What was so expensive what Tarkovsky did at Mosfilm? Why, the silver
halide on celluloid (allright, acetate, not nitrate). Really.
High-resolution footing is fundamentally cheap, and so is special fx if
rendered. Talent is not cheap, but I assume they're not in for the money
(no more than 99.99% of all musicians are), and everything else is pretty
much zero cost.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:25 MST