Movie Production

The most detrimental thing in movie production today is the runaway production from Canada and other foreign countries.  This practice lures away films produced in the US, and the film-labor groups are what suffer by foreign tax incentives.  I am a member of IATSE and have worked for the union on and off for about a decade.  Every now and then I still get a call for production work, although those calls are not as frequent as they once were.  I understand that films cost more in the US, but there have been recent amendments that allow filmmakers to benefit from certain tax advantages if they keep the production in America.  It only makes sense in this economy to bring jobs back to the US.

For the independent studio, pre-sales are a great financing option because the revenue stream is seemingly endless.  Home video, foreign distribution, pay-per-view, cable TV, and network TV, all add up to substantial revenue for a film.  This could cover up to 60% of the cash needed but also act as collateral for bank loans.  There is some risk involved, but I think this would be a great financial tool because the terms of the distribution can be defined, and the studio gets to keep the rights to the distribution that it doesn’t sell. 

With the way the music industry is going with UMG's takeover of EMI, leaving only three majors, I think we’re seeing something similar with movies studios.  As far as the independent studio, coproduction of a portfolio of films may be the only way to get a film financed.  Unfortunately, I believe venture capitalists and angel investors will be more likely to back a major that an independent.  The completion and performance risks are just too great with an independent, and the return on investment isn't high enough.   There is so much unpredictability in film, and it comes down to the relationships of the producers, talent, and the financiers.  Of course, there are independent blockbusters like 'Sideways', as well as major studio disasters.  Take Disney’s recent movie 'John Carter.'  It cost Disney $200 million in operating losses, and it did far better in foreign theaters than in America.  Just goes to show how lucrative those pre-sale distribution rights could be.   

Sampling and Beat Jacking

Hip-hop artists have traditionally employed a norms based approach to things like sampling, quoting, and the levels at which these are accepted.  For much of the 90s, imitation was considered flattery, and instances of hip-hop artists suing each other over copyrights were rare.  Then, hip-hop became popular, and popular music is largely owned by corporations. 

Hip-hop recognizes ‘biting’ as the appropriation of another’s lyrics and passing off such lyrics as their own.  Acceptable ways in which an artist may quote another artist are out of respect for another’s skill, and when an artist uses another’s lyrics as a springboard for their own creation. 

Beat jacking is the appropriation of another’s beat, the non-vocal equivalent of biting. Sampling is the borrowing of other beats and combining them into a new whole, and the appeal is in how it’s combined.  Sampling is among the highest form of flattery within the culture, but with caution.  If done without permission, it can lead to a lawsuit under copyright law.  

The case of Jarvis vs. A&M Records in 1993 was a landmark in the industry.  Boyd Jarvis’ song, “The Music’s Got Me,’ was sampled without authorization.  The defendant’s attorney argued that it contributed to fragmented literal similarity. The court rejected the argument on the basis that copying even small portions may diminish the original work.  Sampling penalties softened over the next 10 years and the hip-hop community became too comfortable with the law’s seemingly open policy.  Then In 2004, The Sixth Circuit made it clear that there is no exception for unauthorized copying of a sound recording without permission in the case of Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films. 

Obviously, these suits could have been avoided by clearing the samples before production.  In 2005, the Beastie Boys were sued over the use of a three bar sample. They won the case because they obtained a license from the record company for the use of the sound recording in question.  

File Sharing and Digital Downloads

In today's market, artists are not making money in the same ways they used to.  The album is really just a promotional tool for the accompanying tour because that is where the money is today.  Even though streaming on sites like Spotify is way up, digital downloads are also up by 7% from the same period.  Though illegal downloads and streaming are at an all time high, digital sales have remained stable, if not increased.  The research suggests that streaming music services such as Spotify and Rhapsody does not kill digital download sales.  Although correlation is not causation, it may just simply show that there is no smoking gun. If digital downloads remain stable, touring will remain unchanged.  If sales drop from streaming and file sharing, you will see band tours increase to make up for the lost revenue. As technology becomes more advanced, file sharing and stream ripping will certainly negatively affect the purchase of digital downloads.