posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:22 PM
ever wondered why holly wood releases a movie at different times across the planet?
it used to be that actual film was shipped from one movie theatre to another by sailing ship or steam ship,
so why do we still have a movie release schedules that follow thinking from years when the fastest form of transport was a boat?
what effect does the intentional slow down of release of movies globally have on film makers and film watchers?
for the film makers its simply about making more money, for the film watchers it is simply about being frustrated.
is there a reason why film makers cant move into the internet age?
there is no technological reason why film watchers have to be frustrated, and this frustration often leads to a pirated solution.
so is the idea that film must be released slowly (for larger profits) actually frustrating people into going to other sources for the content?
without doubt if some one in america is raving about a new movie, i want to see it,
and i dont see why i should have to wait because holly wood wont get with the internet.
so in a strangely circular argument, if there was a world wide release of films and movies that anyone with money can access, this in itself would
solve the frustration and piracy in one go?
because the internet works at the speed of light and because film watchers talk to each other over this speed of light communications platform, they
are aware of films as soon as they are released.
which is why it is so frustrating to have to wait for staggered release dates.
so does the out dated release model actually agrivate the situation and make piracy a less frustrating option?
rather than change the approach of release to the changing speed of communications and expectations of film watchers, hollowood has forced counties
into passing laws that benefit their distribution model (frustration sales)
what laws have other countries had to pass to prop up hollywoods outdated business model?
i come from new zealand, in my country its called "the three strikes law"
it allows ISP's to spy on citizens on behalf of "rights holders" (film makers)
it allows for guilty until proven innocent on civil crimes of copyright infringement
and all this is only needed because holly wood refuses to release films and movies in a timely manner,
so why does hollywood need all this power, after all even my government is not allowed to spy on me, but hollywood is?
it makes no logical sense to preserve the rights of one group (hollywood) just in case i infringe on them by taking away the rights of another group
(film watchers) by allowing spying and guilty to proven innocent type trails.
so is it circularly argued that by not moving with the technology and the times, that hollywood can empower itself over the lives of film watchers spy
on them, frustrate them with pointless delays and make laws that further make film watchers the enemy of films,
so that holly wood can make more money?
or so that holly wood can have more power over the lives of ordinary people who just want to watch films?
so if they fixed their distribution model none of these loss of privacy or loss of revenue would be a problem?
we would not be spied on and guilty untill proven innocent, thats for sure.
some piracy would always occur, but not the amount we see today, you see film makers can "claim" privacy as lost sales and get a tax break, so in
effect it would cost them some tax money if they fixed the release/privacy problem.
so instead we are required to pass laws to make people less private.
this parallels with the kim dot com case,
the loss of privacy (GCSB spying)
the guilty untill proven innocent (assets seized without trial)
the spying on new Zealand citizens (ISP watching internet use for violations)
having to invent new laws so that holly wood can get its way,
instead of simply moving with the times of the age we are required to give up all our liberty and privacy so that hollywood can make more money and
become even more powerful over our daily lives.
at what point do swat teams start turning up with machine guns, and treat us like terrorists?
i guess that point has passed, is this the future of holly wood?
as a new zealand citizen i am appalled by holly wood and what it has done to our rights in the name of theirs,
raids on the dot com mansion were over the top, in true hollywood fashion overkill.
treating civilians like terrorists and film watchers like potential criminals,
while you refuse to fix the core of the issue makes your intentions clear.
holly wood refuses to in gauge the internet because it wants the internet dead,
and is prepared to strangle innovation and make our children criminals.
in the process.
for a few more dollars