We totally called this one, and Porn!

Since voting on SOPA would have started today, we thought we’d toot our own horn and repost and older article we originally wrote here, while right under we’ll have an article on porn (actually, while it does mention porn, it deals with the same subject. But continually mentioning porn is a cheap ploy to make more people click through).

How Movie Studios Shoot Themselves in the Foot

In 1975, Sony released Betamax, a video cassette recording device that could be attached to a television set and could record television programs onto its Betamax cassettes.

In 1976 Walt Disney and Universal Studios sued Sony for copyright infringement. They argued that these video cassette recorders (VCRs) could be used to copy and distribute their movies. They also argued that most people would record movies for later viewing and, when this viewing occurred, they would skip over the commercials, thereby depriving the studios of their source of revenue. The case dragged on, through various courts, until 1984, at which point the supreme court ruled in favor of Sony.

Interestingly, the movie studios failed to realize that in a few short years a market for videotapes of each of their movies would provide huge revenue streams. Needless to say, had the court ruled in their favor, movie videotapes, and therefore companies such as Blockbuster and Hollywood videos, would not have existed for many years to come, and the whole VCR market would have been pushed back by years.

Fast forward to 2004, and MGM, along with 27 other entertainment studios, is suing Grokster (remember them?) over copyright infringement for their P2P software. Much like the Betamax case, Grokster argued that their product could be used legitimately or illegitimately and, just like Sony Betamax, they were not liable for what their users chose to do. More to the point, the studios should have noticed the parallels and realized the potential for future profits in this new medium.

Unlike the Betamax case, however, the courts ruled in favor of the studios in 2005. Now, half a decade later, we are at much the same point as we were then (except other companies have taken Grokster’s position). MGM could have tried selling movies online, encoding them, providing a monthly access fee, advertising the fact that movies available through their websites were legitimate and virus-free, among many other revenue generating schemes.

Instead they chose to set back the online movie industry by years.


What Porn Can Teach Us

The movie industry is finding itself at a crossroads. This is a multimillion dollar industry staring nervously at the music industry, the file sharing that swept it up, and the industry’s abysmal response to it all. Now Hollywood is wondering what will happen to them. Will they lose returns because of illegal sharing? Will this mean they won’t be able to afford to make new movies? Will all our actors be out of work?

We think it would help if these Hollywood execs, rather than looking at the music industry, followed millions of internet users and looked at the porn industry. This is an industry that, not many years ago, had movie directors, released movies, had well-known actors and actresses, and could be a lucrative career for many. These days, however, there are countless online providers of free or cheap videos and websites. Amateurs are quite literally posting videos from their bedrooms and competing with the professionals.

So what has happened? There are still plenty of sites that make much money (otherwise you wouldn’t be bombarded with spam about it), but they do so by differentiating themselves. Whether it be a specific niche (we won’t get into specifics) or a performer who has created a name for her/himself, certain people have found ways of standing out by providing the customer with what they want.

What does this mean for the movie industry? Hollywood will usually say that without their big budgets (and therefore their grasp on the industry) expensive movies like The Matrix would never have been made. We believe this will be less and less true as time passes. With the equipment that can be bought on credit card advances, people are increasingly able to film and edit video that looks more and more professional. So special effects will be more and more mainstream. Of course, hiring big name actors might become harder, which would mean The Wachowski brothers might have had to hire someone other than Keanu Reeves to play Neo.

On the other hand, actors who differentiate themselves will still be in very high demand. Likewise, freelancers who have real talent will find funding for their movies. Movies will be more niched, more targeted and provide more of what customers want, and an industry that once had extremely high barriers to entry will be giving everyone a shot at bat. And those who are able to keep with the times will benefit enormously. Much like has happened with the Porn industry.

Enough with Patents?

Most readers have heard of various “patent wars” which have been happening lately. Many may have heard of “patent trolls” as well. Basically, with more and more patents being created and granted in this Internet era several things are going on in Intellectual Property law.

Let’s start with the basics. A patent is granted to an inventor wherein, in exchange for his revealing the secrets of his invention, he has a 20 year monopoly over the technology. This means that others can build on his invention and invent their own products in the meantime. This encourages innovation and also means that others don’t have to wait 20 years before inventing new products.

Recently, however, this hasn’t been the case. When the total profits from patents are around $4 Billion, but the associated litigation costs are $14 Billion, it is hard to argue that they are helping the economy in any sense. What is going on here?

First of all, the patent office in the United States is falling very much behind in its approval of patents, with a 700,000 patent backlog and a waiting period of three years.

Secondly, the so-called “patent trolls” are buying up patents and using them as lottery tickets. In other words, they are not creating anything but just suing any company they can for infringing upon their patents. Whether they are right or wrong often doesn’t matter, since the other party will usually prefer to settle, rather than fight the case. Needless to say, lawyers on both sides of the case will pick up a percentage of every IP lawsuit they can bring about.

This has the opposite effect of what patents were originally supposed to do: It stifles innovation. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are regularly finding themselves sued for one reason or another, and are therefore often scared to forge ahead in new industries and markets.

Recently, the America Invents Act was passed. This has been touted by politicians (who were quick to pass it) as, well, the “America Invents Act” (some marketing firm might have helped). It is a step in the right direction, in that patent protection is granted from the moment it is filed, rather than issued and, secondly, the patent office itself will have more control over its budget. But will this really stop any of the associated litigation? We doubt it.

So what is the solution? Mark Cuban has mentioned that we should get rid of patents completely, at least in software and processes. According to him most inventors don’t invent for the patent, but to get a new business up and running, so that new patents merely get in the way of innovation. According to him, software should be copyrightable, while if you’re creating a new process “… use it. The benefit is from creating the idea and using it in a business to your advantage. Afraid that some big company might steal the idea? That is life. When you run with the elephants there are the quick and the dead.”

And we are inclined to agree. Business ideas are just too abstract to merit patents, and big companies (remember when Google bought up Motorola for its patents back in August last year?) are finding it much too easy to buy up more and more of these in order to stifle future innovation by suing more small businesses. So when it comes to online businesses, Enough with the Patents.

Sick of Checking in Luggage? So are we

On a recent airplane trip yours truly struck up a conversation with a couple sitting on the same row, who said they opted for shipping their luggage rather than checking it in. They said the price was just the same but was still worth it since checking luggage has hassles of its own (lines, weight requirements, waiting at the carousel, etc.). This obviously made me wonder whether this could be a permanent solution.

Those of you who travel in the US have now become accustomed to a steady decline in airline service. Expectations are so low that we barely notice things that would shock many in other countries (and we are often only reminded when we go abroad on another airline). One inconvenience we have been loth to put up with, however, is checking our luggage. We all remember a time when this wasn’t necessary, yet now it has become a permanent feature (NB: JetBlue and Southwest are two exceptions, who still don’t charge for checked luggage, bless their hearts). So might it be cheaper to plan ahead and ship the luggage rather than check it? Luckily, our friends at Airfarewatchdog have saved us the effort by compiling a chart of their own, which you can find here.

Of course, it isn’t comprehensive, but by scanning it you can see that, if you have lighter pieces of luggage, it still tends to be worth checking it in. If, however, you have overweight or oddly shaped luggage, it might be worth shipping after all. There are some exceptions, though. Like if you’re flying from Chicago to Orlando you will pretty much always want to ship your luggage.

Curious about whether it is worth shipping your luggage? Check with USPS, Fedex or UPS and compare to what your flight charges you.

Make your own Book

As some of you may know, a second edition of our book is in the works, and before we finalize everything we thought we would check with you. Is there anything you would like included in this book? Are there any articles or posts you read on this website that you would like to see developed more or explored in greater detail? If so, just let us know and we’ll be happy to look into it. If viable, we’ll add it into the book and credit you with bringing it to our attention.

By the same token, if there is an entire topic we have not touched upon at all that you would like added, feel free to let us know as well. In fact, if you want to write something yourself and if we like it we will feature it and consider it for inclusion in the book (this is an “if” guys, so no guarantees!).

So, got something to add? Feel free to comment below or to write us at Articles@dumbagent.com.

Also, since the book edition will be coming out, our old book is now discounted and you can buy it right here!

An Update on California

We’ve commented before on California’s system of government and how it is dysfunctional. Of course, now California has pretty much become a byword for a state that is run incorrectly and that is squandering the advantages they have (tourism, a huge coast, the movie industry, etc.).

What worries us is when other states start emulating some of California’s models. 10 years ago more than two thirds of all big studio films were filmed in California. Now less than half are. This is because other states have started offering tax incentives and perks for studios to film in their state. The argument is that having a film crew in the area and gaining the publicity will be good for the economy in the long term. Unfortunately hard numbers are difficult to come by, but we’d be surprised to learn that any state has made a profit for this. Having the film crew in the area creates, at best, temp jobs. The publicity is minimal and a crapshoot (New Zealand was helped by Lord of the Rings, Detroit has hardly been helped by the 137 movies filmed there in recent years).
Read more »