CleanFlicks et al. v. Kate Winslet's Titanics: How Hollywood won a lawsuit while losing a cultural battle :: Reason
Quote:
It's hard to see what harm was being done. Companies like CleanFlicks were adding value, bringing the providers' products to a wider audience. Greater demand for your product -- that's a good thing.
the old model, in which a producer produces and an audience passively consumes culture, is over. To be completely honest, that old model was never the way culture worked anyway, but even the pretense of full artistic control is finished in today's environment, in which individuals have an ever-increasing ability to produce and consume culture on their own terms.
. . .
I'm squarely on the side of the easily offended CleanFlicks' customers. They are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume.
By all accounts, the CleanFlicks-type outfits weren't ripping off Hollywood in any way, shape, or form—they were paying full fees for content—and they weren't fooling anyone into thinking their versions were the originals; the whole selling point of CleanFlicks' Titanic is that it spared audiences the original movie's brief moment of full-frontal Winslet. CleanFlicks was simply part of a great and liberatory trend in which audiences are empowered to consume culture on their own terms—not the producers'.
Big content providers may have prevailed in this specific case, but the sooner they understand and adapt to a much larger and more powerful cultural dynamic, the better they'll be at serving the audiences who are increasingly in control of what they watch, listen to, and read.
It's hard to see what harm was being done. Companies like CleanFlicks were adding value, bringing the providers' products to a wider audience. Greater demand for your product -- that's a good thing.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home