Looks like you are a new visitor to this site. Hello!
Welcome to Hope For Film! Come participate in the discussion, and I encourage you to enter your email address in the sidebar and subscribe. It's free! And easy! If you have any suggestions on how to improve this website or suggestions for topics please don't hesitate to write in to any of the blogs.
(If you keep getting this message, you probably have cookies turned off.)
There is a lot of buzz around about Google’s supposed abandonment of their pro-Net Neutrality position due to what is being called a misleading and poorly reported article in today’s WSJ.
But the major point is that Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that “information is not free.” This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren’t newspapers and magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines? Why are they not getting a significant slice of the advertising revenues generated by use of their stories via Google?
I hear a lot of anxiety from other newcomers to social networks. Most of the folks in the film biz I know seem to initially join a network like MyFace for the promotional possibilities and professional networking. Some get seduced by the actual social functions. The anxiety often comes from what will be seen and shared and by whom. Is it good or bad to friend all those who reach out to you even when you don’t know them? Will anyone tag you in photos from the past that you would prefer to remain forgotten? That sort of thing.
Screen International has a good article on the lessons the film business can learn from the music industry. Essentially it comes down to:
The emphasis on piracy needs to mature into a bigger debate about intellectual property – and soon.
They point out:
A workable framework is one that finds a balance, although attaining that, of course, is fraught with risk. Make the controls too tight and you lose innovators and customers. And pirates thrive on protectionism.
Scott Macauley over at the Filmmaker Magazine Blog hipped us to this podcast.
Host Jonathan Kirsch, an attorney specializing in intellectual property and publishing law, moderates a panel discussion on a landmark literary-legal settlement. It allows Google to scan and make available online many out-of-print but still-copyrighted books. The settlement portends a viable digital future for authors, publishers and libraries. Is there any downside?