Piggybacking on Newspapers
Guess what’s going on in California today! (Bear with me.)
— The Getty, long the world’s richest arts institution, lost about $2 billion in the last couple years!
— In a desperate bid to raise revenues, the state started taxing beverages like Smirnoff Ice as liquor instead of beer, perhaps betting that an unwillingness to admit to drinking that crap would muffle any protests. But the California legislature failed again, because the alcohol makers just changed the formula to get around the new law.
— Conservative talk radio is waning, the Los Angeles Times reports:
Casualties include Mark Larson in San Diego, Larry Elder and John Ziegler in Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan in San Francisco, and Phil Cowen and Mark Williams in Sacramento.
Two of the biggest in the business, Roger Hedgecock in San Diego and Tom Sullivan in Sacramento, have switched to national shows, elevating President Obama above Schwarzenegger on their target lists.
Another influential Sacramento host, Eric Hogue, has lost the morning rush-hour show that served as a prime forum to gin up support for the recall of Gov. Gray Davis. Now he airs just an hour a day at lunchtime on KTKZ-AM (1380).
“It’s lonely, it’s quiet, and it’s a shame,” Hogue said of California’s shrinking conservative radio world. “I think this state has lost a lot of benefit. I don’t know if we can grow it back any time soon.”
Demographics certainly aren’t on their side.
— Lakers center Andrew Bynum says he’ll be back from his knee injury in time for the NBA playoffs.
What I’ve just done is to glance at the Los Angeles Times Web site, quickly assess its most interesting stories, and regurgitate the most salient bits for you. In so doing, I haven’t broken any copyright laws, or done anything that would get me accused of plagiarism. But were I to do this everyday — on a site called California Today! or something — I’d certainly be piggybacking off reporting paid for by The Tribune Company, and my doing so would depress their business insofar as I’d attract an audience that would otherwise be forced to get information like that from the Times directly, or not at all.
This freeloader problem is pervasive in media, where newspapers do much of the reportorial work, providing fodder for broadcast news, current events magazines, talk and news radio, morning shows, late night comedians, The Daily Show, The Onion, and many others.
All of which helps explain why I disagree with Tim Lee:
During his time at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, Jim DeLong was probably the most prolific advocate of the “copyright as property rights” theory. He hasn’t been as active in copyright debates the last couple of years, but he’s back with a long article about the fate of the newspaper industry. In it, he warns that unless newspapers can establish “a property rights–based monetization model, based on subscribers or control of advertising or both,” the newspaper industry will become trapped in a “‘tragedy of the commons’ situation” followed by “both individual and collective death spirals.”
What I find fascinating about this is that unlike most other industries, the newspapers don’t have a piracy problem. The recording industry’s problems are at least partly attributable to BitTorrent. But this is clearly not what’s killing the New York Times. People don’t go to peer-to-peer networks for illicit copies of today’s news. To the contrary, virtually everyone involved in the news business has followed copyright to the letter. News organizations may not like Google News, but their actions are likely fair use, and Google honors news organizations’ requests to be taken out of the index. Bloggers’ linking to and quoting from news organizations is indisputably fair use, and it’s hard to imagine news organizations—which derive revenue from advertising—want bloggers to stop linking to their stories.
DeLong asserts, without evidence, that “the Internet community seems unaware of the extent of its own dependence on the newspapers for raw material.” This is simply nonsense. I just skimmed the front page of Google News, and among the non-newspaper sources I saw were the BBC, CNN, CNet, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, ABC, Ars Technica, TheStreet.com, US News and World Report, Forbes, Chicago Public Radio, the Washington Independent, Slate, and Bloomberg. There’s no particular connection between owning a printing press and employing competent journalists. Many other kinds of organizations can and do employ journalists, with a variety of different business models.
In short, the newspaper industry is in the same death spiral as the recording industry, without the lawbreaking that’s commonly blamed for the recording industry’s troubles.
There isn’t a law against piggybacking off newspaper reporting, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a free-rider problem. Alas, the problem is just invisible enough that most people won’t realize all the useful stuff newspapers and their Web sites provide until they’re gone.
This was the critique of Nate Silver’s much celebrated FiveThirtyeight.com. Maybe (maybe) Nate was doing something interesting, unique and useful with the polling data, but his entire endeavor was predicated on someone else paying to acquire that data.
My experience from 25 as communications professional (let’s lump jorno, film, musics, all of it under that umbrella) is that people think this work will get done, whether or not there’s any money in it.
Right now SXSW is teaming with young hopefuls who think they’d trade anything, make any sacrifice, just for a chance that their communication product could be out in world, and their genius could (finally) be recognized.
But as much as folks who aspire to work in jorno, film, TV, music might say they’re not in it for the money, the plain fact is that as the money falls out of the equation, talent will flee to creative endeavors that still offer the chance to make a living wage, and capital will move towards areas that offer a return.
Will their still be a niche for folks like Nate? Maybe. Who can know for sure. What I am sure of is that the trend in communication will continue towards a hollowing out of the middle market; leaving behind a small group of well-paid professional in the upper echelons, and a large group of amateur of various level of quality and commitment celebrating each other’s efforts SXSW style; which is to say paying their own airfare, paying for their own hotel, then returning home to their day job and pursuing their communication ambitions avocationally.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 16, 07:47 AM · #
<i>What I’ve just done is to glance at the Los Angeles Times Web site, quickly assess its most interesting stories, and regurgitate the most salient bits for you.</i>
You’ve just described the standard newspaper’s front page, meant to be visible prior to purchase. It would seem that the newspaper industry has been cutting its throat forever.
— SomeCallMeTim · Mar 16, 09:51 AM · #
Right. I mean when Deadspin laughs at the newspapers and calls them dinosaurs and dances on their grave, they don’t seem to have even a little bit of awareness of what actually is going to happen to them. A huge amount of their posts are “funny” write ups of beat reporters’ stories or based on content generated by newspapers! When you’re a parasitic organism you should have the awareness to not cheer on your host’s demise.
— Freddie · Mar 16, 11:10 AM · #
Is there some kind of technological/legislative fix? The founders put copyright laws in the constitution, inserting the government into a transaction between two parties because having a limited term of copyright was good for the nation. Isn’t a funcitonal news media good for the nation? Would you need an amendment or can congress whip something up? Say that you could use whatever, but you have to share whatever money you make in using the outside content. And keep track of it through some genius google-type operation. Or maybe some kind of tax, like with jukeboxes?
Not very elegant, but I think Tony Comstock may be right. People eventually need to make a living.
— cw · Mar 16, 11:04 PM · #
cw, as sorry as I am to see newspapers die off, I think any sort of “technological/legislative fix” would probably do more harm than good. Current copyright and patent laws are a great example of how a reasonable system can go entirely off the rails when you get into legislative details.
While I agree that an economically viable press is in the public interest, I have absolutely no confidence in the government’s ability to guarantee such a thing through intervention.
I expect the current newspaper model will be replaced by something that does the same essential job about as well and can make money. As long as there is demand for what newspapers provide, someone will find a way to get paid for meeting it.
— Ethan C. · Mar 16, 11:38 PM · #
Not very elegant, but I think Tony Comstock may be right. People eventually need to make a living.
You misunderstand me. Some people will make a living, others will not.
For example, I anticipate that the day is drawing to a close when I am able to feed my family selling recorded version of my films. As “the convergence” becomes perfect, it will simply be too easy for those who think they should pay me for my work to watch it without paying, and more over, it simply won’t occur to anyone post YouTube that they should pay me.
So, what to do? I could join Conor and Peter and go non-profit. Unlike journalism, the structure for non-profit filmmaking is already well entrenched, and non-profit artmaking still enjoys a certain cache; people still go for that Van Gogh, cut off your ear, “not doing it for the money” thing.
But I’m more inclined to follow Ethan’s advice, and see if I can figure out how to actually offer what I have to the world in a form that they have to/are willing to pay for it. Of course the only thing I may have is that in addition to being a passible filmmaker, I’m also a good ditch digger, know how to sweat solder, and can sail a boat from Newport to BVI. Hopefully one or another of these things will still be marketable 10 years from now.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 17, 10:15 AM · #
Those were pretty boring responses. Government bad, market good. Everything be ok, me dig ditch.
Come on guys, entertain me. Think in more detail about this instead of just saying the market will fix it. What if you don’t figure out a way to get paid for making films Tony? Do you really want dig ditches? And what if news reporting is selected out of the environment? Can we actually run a democracy without independant local and national news? Would it still be an actual democracy?
I’m not saying the legislative fix is right, just throwing that out there. The current copyright scheme worked fine fo 200 years and that was a legislative solution. It’s out of date now because of digital technology, but what if we could update it? That is definitely one option. I don’t know how serious the problem really is, but if we are going to talk about it we might as well really talk about it.
I would like to see some ideas instead of handwaving, just because actual ideas are more interesting that just saying the market will figure it out. Because it’s not that the market that will figure it out it’s that people (or government) will figure out the market.
— cw · Mar 17, 12:28 PM · #
Okay, how about this:
We get some of that conservative/libertarian fusion that Jim’s keen on, and then we can have idiosyncratic communities that will make government funding available to support local journalism, because we need local journalism to keep an eye on the government. Because government is under the watchful eye of government funded journalism, those communities will thrive. While the communities that leave journalism to the free market will become corrupt, squalid, and immoral.
Or how about a Second Amendment’s style idea:
The problem is not that they’re aren’t enough copyright laws; the problem is the laws on the books aren’t enforced and the penalties are severe enough. My proposal: steal my movie and I catch you I get to put a bullet in your head while your sister is forced to watch, or rape your sister while you are forced to watch. (My choice, of course.)
Or anti-copyright uptopianist!
Information wants to be free. Copyright is a government issued monopoly that squelches the creation of culture. When we are finally freed from the oppressiveness of the current copyright regime, which bankrolls our corrupt corporate overlords, it will user in a new era of democratized media creation. Public transportation infrastructure will be funded and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will fall by 75% (I like this one best because my wife is holding a lot of Apple stock.)
Entertained?
— Tony Comstock · Mar 17, 01:21 PM · #
A lot of people make the mistake of reducing free market arguments to “government bad, market good,” when the actual argument is usually “market inexorable, government powerless to stop it.” In this particular case, when people say “information wants to be free,” they are not making a value statement; they are making what they believe to be an objective observation. It’s not a question of justice, but a question of what to do about the fundamental truth that “information wants to be free.”
I agree that it is more fun to speculate on possible solutions than to just trust that some innovative individuals will find a solution, if there is one, even though the former is not strictly necessary. I have always imagined that a new patronage system was the answer, with the difference being that a large mass of interested supporters would replace the de Medicis and Esterhazys of yore. Red vs. Blue, Jonathan Coulton, and Michael Yon are models for this kind of patronage in their respective fields.
— Blar · Mar 17, 01:33 PM · #
New? What makes you think that would be new?
— Tony Comstock · Mar 17, 03:46 PM · #
TC: I appreciate the effort. I was mildly amused.
Blar: It’s not that information want to be free, it’s that people want free information. As to patronage, as TC said, we have a patronage system in our non-profit, publicly and privately funded arts. But I’m not sure how much great art has been produced. I know a lot of crap has, for sure. It is a very interesting question for some grad student looking for a thesis.
The trick is to control access somehow. In the first days of books they were arguably the most valuable items on the planet. Each book was one of a kind and they were owned by churches. Access was strictly restircted. But as copying abilities have increased, control of acces has decreased. Becasue access is near universal there is no need to pay. So we need someway to control access to our artworks. What if the book I write is a computer application that knows where it is at all times and if it finds itself somewhere it wasn’t liscenced to be it destroys the computer infrastructure around it. If you play one of TC movies about old people having sex without proper permissions, it destroys your computer. Not as good as a bullit in the head, but still effective. Or instead of destroying, maybe it freezes the display device, like a boot on an illegally parked car. Then you have to pay to get it released. And we model the book/application like the aids virus; it constantly evolves.
— cw · Mar 17, 08:06 PM · #
The trick is to control access somehow.
This is spot on. Where you go off the rails is with your re-hash of DRM. Huge companies with a lot more to lose that me are working day and night on this, getting no where. It’s a dead end.
We’re looking at theatrical distribution. The numbers make sense, even for a small outfit like ours, so long as you can make something that is good enough, special enough to get people out of the house. That’s a much higher bar than selling DVDs, but the margin is higher. Maybe we have what it takes, maybe we don’t.
Instant-of-release access might have some value for entertainment (that includes journalism) in a digital form. People will pay for being able to see, listen, read the very moment something becomes available, especially if the information is timely. It’s a high bar than off brand musings and speculations, or a erotic doco that can be enjoyed today, or tomorrow, or next month, but people who can clear the bar will make money.
The rest is YouTube and blogs and a zillion other forms of avocational media. There will be plenty of it, some of it will be quite good. That doesn’t mean anyone will or should get paid. Maybe Conor and Peter will help me do yacht deliveries to and from the Caribbean.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 17, 08:43 PM · #
Maybe massive low priced sales is the answer. Sell lots of music and movies on line for prices so low that it’s easier to pay the $1 or whatever than it is to find the free download, like itunes. Combine that with enough enforcement add deterenece. And maybe there is some way to just sell veiws or plays instead of copies.
I actually think the answer, like the problem, is in the thechnology. I mean, what we are building is this massive infrastructure of connectedness. Eventually everything will be accessed through the internet. All entertainment, all comunications, all financial transactions. Maybe in the future instead of everything on the internet being free, everything will cost a fraction of a cent. I want to look at TAS $.0002 is deducted from my account, just like when I buy something frm Amazon the money is automatically deducted from my account. In that world I won’t need to make and share a copy of a song, book, or movie, becasue it will always be available anytime, anywhere in the world for a small small price. But all those views/plays will all add up for the artist.
The problem with the infrastructure that would make that possible is that governments could use it to control populations. Internet access would be necessary for daily life. It would be the easiest thing in the world to cut off your access.
— cw · Mar 17, 11:10 PM · #
That’s just literalism. Obviously information is incapable of wanting anything, and the phrase really means that people want free information. It means more than that, though: It means that whatever obstacles you build to keep information from being free, people will tend to find ways around it. Digital Rights Management, for example because you mentioned it, is lousy because people tend to crack it, so you only end up punishing the people who want to pay for your product without protecting anything. Saying that information “wants” to be free is descriptive of a law of human behavior.
I like the idea of the new patronage precisely because it supports for-profit ventures as well as non-profits. The outfits I mentioned are businesses whose model is to give away the core product while giving the diehard supporters opportunities to give them money, whether through premium services, donations, or both.
I’m not sure why you bring up artistic quality, which is ancillary to the matter of how “content providers” (ugh) can make a living. No system can guarantee quality.
Lastly, you bring up micropayments, which is another idea that has been around. I found this to be a persuasive rebuttal to the idea.
— Blar · Mar 18, 01:02 AM · #
Maybe massive low priced sales is the answer. Sell lots of music and movies on line for prices so low that it’s easier to pay the $1 or whatever than it is to find the free download, like itunes. Combine that with enough enforcement add deterrence. And maybe there is some way to just sell views or plays instead of copies.
Maybe for some movies, music, but our own experience is not encouraging.
Our DVDs’ MSRP is $27.95, with a typical street price of $24.95. This is the high side of average for independently produced films. ($20~$30)
Our experience is that the market is already accustomed to paying much less for a non-physical version of movies; $10-$14 for a download to own title.
There is roughly a $2 difference between the cost of providing a DVD and a download to own version of a movie. That means you have to sell about twice as many copies just to stay even.
There had been some hope that ease of access would make up the difference (not just for ourselves but across the entertainment industry); ; that being able browse, click and watch would bring enough new viewers that it would make up for the lower margin. But so far it hasn’t been the case. My own belief is further perfection of the much heralded “convergence” will only make this worse. Any of our films, even BILL AND DESIREE, which has only been out since mid January are available for free online for anyone who knows where/how to look. Even if we exchanged every full-priced DVD sale for 10 online sales at $1/each (impossibly optimistic in my opinion,) our operation would be gutted.
Technology changes things. Painting was devastated by the advent of photography and still hasn’t recovered; as an art form or a commercial enterprise. Theater was similarly devastated by cinema. Large bands and orchestras were destroyed by amplification technology that allowed the four piece rhythm section to fill a dance hall with sound, rather than the 20 piece band previously required.
Creative people have a poor habit of vasty over estimating the value of their ideas. But no one has ever been able to capitalize on their intellectual property without maintaining physical control of over the work product. Not the Murano glass makers, not Adobe, and certainly not me.
What the sudden availability of unlimited access to the means of distribution has shown is just how little a good idea is worth. That’s a bitter pill for folks weened on the idea that their cleverness is worth something.
As to Blar’s “Patronage”. I believe if his examples are seen for what they are, they are merely a reassertion of demanding payment for work product that can be physically controlled, with work product that cannot be controlled serving in a promotional capacity.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 18, 07:37 AM · #
Blar—counterfiting of entertainment has only been an issue in the past two decades, with maybe the crazy exception of counterfit paintings and furniture. Before that “information” in the sense we are talking about—entertainment media—was content to be expensive. I think that clieche makes more sense when you are talking about information in the classical sense: knowledge, technique, method.
Maybe at some point after we have got our fiil of entertainment downloaded to a plastic box we will rediscover the pleasure of the physical. I really like the physicality of books. I like paper, I like the way print looks on paper, I like being able to read my book anywhere in the world at anytime without any other requirements except sunlight to read by. I used to really like LPs with the cover art and the colored vinal and picture discs. I even like cds except when the stupid boxes break. Plus, there is something about going to the movies that sitting on my couch with a dvd dosen’t match.
Maybe the ubiquity of digital entertainment will create a niche for artist delievring entertainment in really creative and interesting physical packaging or environments. For instance what if I realeased my latest collection of songs on a chip embeded in a squishy silicone octopus with mysterious internal flashing lights, a deliciously nubbly texture, a fishy scent and a USB port. You could download the music anywhere, but you can’t download this impossibly cool object through which to listen to my music, nor would it be easy to counterfit.
I don’t know if your movies, TC, would lend themselves to this sort of delivery system—you probably don’t have the right audience. But imagine if the next Tim Burton movie came in jar of pickled eggs? I would consider buying that depending on the price.
— cw · Mar 18, 11:09 AM · #
One model that might work is a subscription service, like Rhapsody, Lexis and JSTOR, or a subscription-cum-platform service like Kindle, DirectTV and iPhone 3G. I’d pay $19.99/mo for access to all major newspapers and magazines, especially if the service heightened the ability to sift through, highlight, connect and save its data.
The biggest problem is the initial step of coordination. How do you get all the relevant news services to roll back free online access at the same time, and how do you distribute the revenue?
— JA · Mar 18, 12:14 PM · #
Maybe the ubiquity of digital entertainment will create a niche for artist delievring entertainment in really creative and interesting physical packaging or environments. For instance what if I realeased my latest collection of songs on a chip embeded in a squishy silicone octopus with mysterious internal flashing lights, a deliciously nubbly texture, a fishy scent and a USB port. You could download the music anywhere, but you can’t download this impossibly cool object through which to listen to my music, nor would it be easy to counterfit.
Whether or not you realize it, you’ve just described Apple’s business model. We own shares of Apple, and I am delighted to see that they can get people to buy “impossibly cool” record players over and over and over again so they can continue listening to their music on the most “impossibly cool” record player currently available. Long live “impossibly cool!”
(Back when FCP started to eat up the middle and low end of desktop video editing market was that a Macintosh computer was merely a dongle for FinalCutPro. A “dongle” is a physical key that software companies that really really can’t afford the piracy that is an inevitable part of mere serial number protection use to protect their property. Everyone hates them because they’re inconvient, fail at the worst possible moment, get lost, etc. But, suffering through the hassle of a dongle is much much better than the software that you paid $10K, $20K, $50K, $100K being used by some asshole down the street being for free.)
Anyway, yes, making something impossibly cool (or even merely moderately entertaining) that cannot easily be replicated is more or less what anyone who want to make money by making things and selling them has to be able to do. I’m not sure this counts as a grand revelation, even if people talk about it as if it is…
— Tony Comstock · Mar 18, 12:14 PM · #
Apple products are usually better, not just cooler. Especially in the early years of personal computing. I was a graphic artist/animator for a long time and used both at various times for the same tasks. I can’t adaqautely express how frustrating window’s equiped computers were in the early 90s compared to mac. One big frustration was the computer guys required to maintain windows machines and their elitist attitudes. We maintained the macs ourselves, not that they needed much.
— cw · Mar 18, 01:49 PM · #
No need to evangelize to me about Apple hardware and software. Now and again I have been forced to work on Wintel machines.
I am not given to violet outbursts, but I found working on Wintel machines so frustrating that on one occasion it was all I could do not to smash the laptop I was working on into small bits. I have no doubt the rise in psychological pharmacology is related to the dominance of Wintel machines in peoples lives.
The short-lived Mac clones were quite ugly, but then you don’t spend much time interacting with a desktop computers physical form. Why do you suppose one of the first things that Steve Jobs did when came back to Apple was terminate the clone maker’s licensing agreement? It’s related to your stinky squid.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 18, 02:01 PM · #
Apple couldn’t control the quality of the parts that the clones used. That is a big reason why windows machines sometimes suck: all kinds of different componants of varying quality and design. When you can control both software and hardware then things are more likely to work.
Not that I would deny that the quality of apple industrial design adds to their appeal. If you use something every day, it’s nice when the design functions well and is aesthetically pleasing.
But this is a dangerous topic.
— cw · Mar 18, 02:16 PM · #
Um, no. That’s the line that was put out at the time; like many other things Steve Jobs says, it was a lie chosen for the eagerness with which it would be accepted as the truth.
In fact, the quality of the Mac clones was just fine. In fact the clones had faster processors and better graphics cards at a lower price that the Macs, and the manufacturing quality was demonstrably better.
Jobs pulled the plug because he recognized that the most valuable thing Apple had was the Macintosh OS. The box it comes in is a stinky squid dongle.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 18, 02:28 PM · #
That may be.
— cw · Mar 18, 04:45 PM · #
I think it was Peter who posted a link to a lecture about Trent Reznor’s stinky squid factory. If I had the vaguest notion how to design and market stinky squid, I’d be all over it!
— Tony Comstock · Mar 18, 05:44 PM · #
I can’t see how to make it work with what I have seen of your product. You have unique porn that a certain type of consumer is going to buy, but I don’t think they are the type of consumers that are attracted to fun artistic packaging. But maybe with a different style of porn. Collector’s Edition Porn. I envision a ceramic Elvis Decantor filled with Southern Comfort and a flavor of digitlized porn that would appeal to people who find Elvis decantors full of porn and liquor appealing.
Or how about this. Instead of American Idol, it’s America’s Next Pornstar Next Door. Or maybe it could be called Porn Island. You have a website and charge people to watch your webizodes. Plus you sell advertising and DVDs. I bet someone has already thought of this one.
— cw · Mar 18, 09:44 PM · #
Tony, you should pitch to Showtime or HBO a show documenting how you make the porn you make, and how you are trying to make it work. I bet a lot of people would be interested.
You have a benchmark: Deeper Throat, and Debbie Does Dallas (Again).
— JA · Mar 18, 11:24 PM · #
One of the reason I started making the films I make is because I really don’t care for HBO’s treatment of sexuality on their late night Real Sex franchise. In fact, I find it decidedly off putting.
None the less, in the Autumn of 2005 my wife and I found ourselves at the HBO offices at Sixth and 46th to discus the possibility of a project. We must of made quite a pair. We had just driven the 3 1/2 hours from our house on the East End of LI, including fighting through midday midtown traffic; I was even less groomed than usual; and my wife was 8 1/2 months pregnant with our second child.
My anxiety was running high because despite the fact that I don’t really like how HBO treats sex (actually I find it vile) HBO is a prestigious venue, so there was the possibility of raising the visibility of our work and making more money. Convictions are fine, but like politicians and plumbers, artists have to eat. I resolved to listen.
My anxiety only lasted about 10 minutes into our meeting, because within those first ten minutes it was clear that I would never allow my work to be aired on HBO with full editorial control, and I would never become a part of any sort of HBO “documentary” production without full editorial control. None of this needed to be said out loud. My wife and I simply exchanged glances and knew.
The rest of the meeting proceeded amicably, but I am not so evolved that I did not take (and still take to this day) some pleasure in their confusion (subtly but distinctly rendered in their affect) that we were not falling over ourselves to be on television. (Oh wait, it’s not television. It’s HBO.)
I appreciate the suggestions, and know that they are offered with good humor and with the of kindest intentions. It would be impossible for me to fully explain in this short space why these suggestions are in fact hurtful to read.
My work is not pornography, and the subjects who share such an intimate aspect of their lives are not pornstars. They are ordinary people, who like myself and my wife, feel there is something missing in how sexuality is depicted in cinema; especially against the background noise of pornography, and the fantasmagoric violence in popular films, television, and news that is hardly given a second thought.
But unlike most ordinary people who are content to talk about what’s wrong and what might be done, and then go on with their lives, the subjects of my films have done something tremendously courageous. They have offered the most intimate aspect of their relationship in service of their beliefs, and entrusted me as steward of their gift.
I hope if you consider these films from that point of view, you’ll understand.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 19, 12:23 AM · #
I’m sorry my jokes caused pain. It was not my intention at all. I have only seen a few previews of your movies, so I don’t really know what they are about. But the way you describe them it makes sense to distinguish them from porn.
So no Elvis decanter.
— cw · Mar 19, 11:56 AM · #
cw, I know it wasn’t your intention. I do my best to take comments like yours in the spirit in which they are intended, and I’m a big fan of thinking crazy. As a shorthand for the concept, the smelly squid is a keeper, and I’ll be using it again!
I also try the best I can to explain why this work is different and why that difference matters to me so much without sounding like I have a persecution complex. (Or at least I do what I can to hide it.)
I had a longer post loaded up on the way digital technology cut a path of destruction through the film and television business over the last 15 years, and my own personal experience of how I’ve had to re-invent what I do — what I make, how I make it, who I make it for, and how I get paid — every 2-4 years. I think there are parallels to what newspapers and journalism is facing. But I expect that we haven’t seen the last of this topic, so I’ll save it for another day.
If I’m a little rough on Conor or Peter or anyone else shaking their head and wonder “what am I going to do?” I hope my demeanor might be excused as that of a grizzled (shell shocked?) veteran of the dynamism that technology has brought to business world, and to the communications industries in particular.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 19, 04:07 PM · #