The NY Times recently published an editorial pressing the great need to regulate broadband, under the auspices of the FCC. It’s true that broadband in the US is an embarrassment. But will regulation seek to fix the symptoms (i.e. regulate “Net Neutrality”) or is there political will to address the underlying problem- primarily, lack of competition? In Europe, the government enforced strong competition, leading to cheap, fast, competitive internet access for consumers. In the US, such enforcement has died along the way and as a result, there are monopolized, expensive, slow, and consumer-unfriendly options.

Artists, particularly media and film artists, are at the mercy of this system since control of bandwidth is one of the few legal, effective approaches corporate media owners have left to enforce monetization of their products. This is how people access our work. We should be doing more than just demanding regulation or change, we should be actively seeking alternatives to the current broadband bottleneck. (And if my experience is anything to go on, 3G/4G wireless is not the solution).

Two fun copyright geekery events this week. First, CopyNight returns, hosted by me and Fred Benenson at Swift Bar 34 E 4th St (between Bowery and Lafayette), tomorrow, Tuesday 4/27 at 7PMish. This is a social night which is open to anyone who likes talking IP and drinking beverages, possibly in that order.

On Saturday, Pratt hosts Copy/Right(?) a symposium about copyright, creative commons, fair use and library science. Good Times!

In the New York Times, Michael Kimmelman recently wrote about what he termed DIY Culture- sort of the positioning of local versus global commerce. There seem to be assumptions that go along with this kind of thinking that confuse global and modern or local and old-fashioned, as he writes about the prevalence of bookstores in Berlin:

This was more than just a system of distribution and sales; it was a cultural as well as economic affair. It influenced civic life and social relations in ways that browsing books on Amazon or Google can’t.

Now, I am a huge bookstore fan- I spend many hours in them each month. But to suggest that social relations or communities that aren’t powerful in their own way- in some ways more powerful- can’t emerge on Amazon does seem to be willfully ignoring the reality of culture today. This is true as well of other kinds of cultural interactions- just because they don’t happen in physical spaces, doesn’t make them less valid.

For filmmakers who have traditionally created work to be shared in groups, the challenge may be to create experiences of sharing (or simultaneous viewing) that are not so dependent on shared physical space. On the other hand, people who interact online seem interested in meeting up “in real life” when circumstances permit- so don’t give up on screenings yet- but look to successful models of transitioning between the kinds of spaces. As someone asked me yesterday, where is the Last FM for movies?

There has been some good feedback to the post I had up on IFP’s blog this week, “At Least Hobbies Are Fun” (the title refers to a comment made during The Conversation by Ira Deutchman about someone sort of ‘accusing’ filmmaking to be a hobby). A sample from the post:

But there is a reality, it seems to me, that is missing from the discussion. Selling independent films is not and never was a “business model” (or- if you wish- not a ‘good’ business model), in the context that making these films should be the basis for a lucrative career using the principles of an MBA program. A good business model takes into account what the consumer wants and tries to give them that. It does not find something that one personally likes and then tries to make other people care about it, which is something more like patronage.

There has been a recent trend to make it seem like there is money draining out of the business of independent film when in reality the small amount of actual net revenue is just being redistributed.

Over the weekend there was some controversy over the relevance of conferences in general which Scott Macauly discusses at Filmmaker Magazine’s blog (and mentions my post as well).

Have an article up at QuestionCopyright.org about a new approach for filmmakers and other entertainment artists in the reproductive economy. Sample:

For the first time, it is possible for a filmmaker to make a film on a very small budget, use promotion and distribution methods that are low-cost or free, and find enough revenue to break even and possibly to support themselves in a basic fashion. It means you probably won’t become a millionaire, but in return your chances of being able to support yourself through your work go up, and they go up more the better your work is.

I’ll be presenting a workshop at IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Documentary Lab this week and I’ll be interested to see up close how filmmakers are thinking about audience engagement. Twitter is abuzz today about Jeff Steele’s take on the crowdfunding model (he’s against it) and he calls audience building a “Loser.”

Building an audience as a way to appeal to investors/financiers might sound like a great idea, but having a bunch of YouTube hits does not translate into dollars and means almost nothing to the buyers or financiers.

Of course, his comments are in the context of films which require “financiers,” which we are seeing to be less necessary in a super-low-budget-higher-quality-own-it-yourself model that is emerging due to various technological advances. Still, the other model will linger as long as schools can sell creative MBAs and the AFM can get anyone to attend.