Roger
Leatherwood
Brown
 
 Hands
Off:
 Access
to
Moving
Image
Content
without
Physical
Possession

 As
A
New
Delivery
Business
Model
 
 1.


Objects
 Filmed
programming
is
materially
different
than
other
forms
of
performed
 entertainment
‐
they
need
to
be
fixed
in
tangible
form,
usually
through
the
efforts
of
 production
and
manufacture,
in
order
to
be
effectively
distributed
to
as
wide
an
 audience
as
possible.

Staged
performances
and
most
music
have
the
ability
to
travel
 more
freely
and
can
be
performed
spontaneously
by
any
number
of
performers
or
 participants
in
a
variety
of
settings,
and
the
results
are
usually
close
to
the
intent
of
 the
original
authors.

Films
are
captured
performances,
unique
to
a
specific
time
and
 setting,
and
are
heavily
mediated
by
a
variety
of
"authors"
through
post‐production.

 The
final
product
manifests
a
complex
and
unique
series
of
efforts,
and
the
physical
 qualities
inherent
in
this
final
manufactured
product
are
what
are
therefore
 reproduced,
distributed
and
exhibited.
 The
proliferation
and
amount
of
these
discreet
objects,
whether
35mm
film
prints
 or
tape‐based
masters,
DVDs
or
digital
streaming
files,
or
NTSC
or
PAL‐encoded
for
 specific
regions
and
uses,
creates
large
challenges
for
the
studios
and
suppliers
in
 trying
to
manage
and
fund
every
possible
iteration
to
the
correct
demand.

The
 market
for
home
entertainment
changes
in
terms
of
how
customers
want
to
receive


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 2
 
 
 
 their
moving
images,
with
increasing
access
to
broadband
and
changing
modes
of
 engagement
with
them,
over
the
Internet
or
in
digital
rather
than
physical
formats,
 the
installed
infrastructure
for
producing
and
distributing
these
moving
images
 must
change
as
well.
 A
handful
of
business
models
have
been
announced
in
the
last
12
months
to
deliver
 filmed
entertainment
to
a
wide
public
which
have
little
or
nothing
to
do
with
 manufacturing
traditional
VHS
tapes,
DVDS,
or
other
analog
objects
to
be
distributed
 through
increasingly
cumbersome
systems.

These
new
models
will
involve
 delivering
access
to
filmed
content
and
other
media
exclusively
over
the
web
or
 wirelessly,
virtually,
embracing
new
business
structures
that
save
resources
in
 specific
ways
at
the
onset
of
the
distribution
lifecycle
but
may
cost
more
ultimately
 at
the
end
of
the
cycle
and
in
perpetuity.

There
are
however
measurable
immediate
 benefits
to
the
distribution
process,
and
if
audience
behavior
changes
substantially,
 they
may
feel
they
benefit
as
well.
 Films
as
objects
have
had
a
long
history.

Film
prints
were
shown
in
venues
 equipped
to
show
them
properly,
primarily
movie
theatres,
and
the
audience
had
to
 go
and
be
present
in
the
same
physical
space,
slaves
to
the
scheduling
and
 programming
of
the
films.
The
age
of
home
entertainment
and
rise
of
videotapes,
 then
laserdiscs,
DVDs
and
Blu‐rays
allowed
enthusiasts
to
own
and
play
films
 whenever
they
wanted.

Each
iteration
was
embraced
and
eventually
left
behind
as
 new
modes
with
presumably
newer
technological
and
usability
features
were
 introduced.


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 3
 
 
 
 This
cycle
is
a
burden
for
manufacturers,
having
to
recreate
and
usually
re‐master
 the
film
object
through
each
of
these
iterations.

While
there
was
obvious
financial
 benefit
to
selling
something
over
and
over
with
each
new
technology,
audiences
 have
begun
to
abandon
the
habit
of
purchasing
titles
over
and
over.

Each
object,
 whether
it
was
a
tape
or
DVD,
is
susceptible
to
being
copied
and
resold,
and
more
 recently,
made
available
on
the
Internet,
either
through
an
official
upload
on
a
 studio‐sponsored
site
or
through
file
sharing
sites.

Increasingly,
as
the
films
 themselves
became
so
ubiquitous
and
people
are
sampling
and
streaming
them
 more
regularly,
the
objects
have
become
less
important
as
they
become
redefined
 by
their
use.


 They
are
now
"digital"
objects.

Over
20%
of
the
US
public
reported
watches
some
 kind
of
video
online
on
a
daily
basis,
and
over
35%
has
watched
television
 programming
online
(Madden,
2009).

DVD
sales
are
down
as
much
as
20%
(Smith
 2009).

The
challenge
has
always
been
to
deliver
the
entertainment
in
a
format
 that's
usable
by
the
customer
and
easily
deliverable,
as
well
as
measurable
and
 monetizable
by
the
producer.

Producers
of
filmed
content
and
the
studios
want
to
 control
that
access,
and
print
copies
of
films
were
hard
to
duplicate.

When
the
 consumer
videotape
industry
was
developed
in
the
1980s,
studios
filed
lawsuits
 against
the
tape
recorder
manufacturers
and
rental
stores,
realizing
the
ability
to
 control
the
objects
were
now
out
of
their
grasp
and
control.

DRM
strategies,
"digital
 rights
management,"
were
added
to
CDs
and
DVDs
in
the
1990s,
a
software‐based
 schema
to
prevent
them
from
being
exploited
or
used
in
any
other
way
beside


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 4
 
 
 
 playback
by
the
original
owner.

Apple's
iTunes
have
had
DRM
systems
embedded
in
 most
of
their
music
files,
at
least
until
recently,
an
attempt
to
control
indiscriminate
 copying
of
songs
or
movies
among
many
computers
or
users.

The
proliferation
and
 ease
of
copying
DVDs
have
led
many
studios
to
even
offer
a
"digital
copy"
along
with
 the
DVD
of
their
films
as
a
way
to
manage
how
consumers
might
acquire
the
digital
 file,
hoping
that
giving
it
to
them
freely
yet
limited
by
DRM
is
perhaps
easier
than
 burning
or
downloading
it
illegally.
 2.
Streams
 Streaming
of
moving
images
over
an
Internet
connection
became
possible
with
 increasing
bandwidth
capabilities
on
many
home
computers
and
advanced
 compression
systems.

They
no
longer
need
to
be
re‐created
and
manufactured
and
 shipped
as
discreet
units
to
each
buyer.

Films
are
large
files
and
hard
to
move
 quickly
back
and
forth
on
slow
connections,
and
streaming
enables
users
to
quickly
 begin
viewing
moving
images
without
downloading
the
entire
file
first.

By
having
 them
in
the
"cloud,"
or
living
off
your
local
computer
in
large
servers,
they
are
 accessible
to
users
(usually
through
a
licensed
device
or
service)
without
delivering
 a
unique
analog
unit.
The
servers
are
owned
and
managed
by
someone
else
who
add
 value
with
either
tools
to
manage
the
data,
ways
to
find
and
connect
other
content
 and
users,
as
well
as
providing
quick
access.

Online
storage
sites
like
Flickr
to
 Picassa
for
photographs,
to
Google
docs
and
Etherpad,
both
used
for
"sharable"
 documents
among
distant
users,
are
popular
examples
of
applications
that
reside
 online,
to
be
accessed
remotely.

As
technology
allows
streaming
access
in
"real‐

Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 5
 
 
 
 time,"
access
is
friction‐less
and
can
be
controlled
through
fees
and
the
promise
of
 instant
gratification,
as
well
as
having
the
ability
to
have
the
usage
monitored.
 YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com)
is
the
largest
and
best‐known
example
of
easy
 streaming
of
video
online.
Begun
only
4
years
ago,
they
now
reportedly
deliver
over
 1
billion
views
daily
(Helft
2009).


Developed
as
a
site
for
user‐generated
content,
 the
original
algorithms,
according
to
original
site
designer
Chad
Hurley,
were
 specifically
designed
to
deliver
video
quickly
over
limited
cable
or
phone
line
 capacity
at
the
expense
and
instead
of
high
quality.

Only
recently
has
an
HD
option
 become
available
and
viable,
and
many
professional
content
providers
are
 exploiting
this,
by
downloading
longer
and
higher‐quality
files,
in
many
cases
 broadcast‐quality
content
and
full‐length
movies.

Still,
over
80%
of
all
videos
on
 YouTube
are
"user
created"
by
non‐professionals,
and
Google
struggles
to
monetize
 YouTube,
mostly
through
advertising
around
the
professional
content.

The
amount
 of
servers
and
their
cost
relative
to
how
much
revenue
YouTube
likely
generates
 suggests
that
they're
losing
at
least
$100,000
per
year
(Paczkowski
2009a),
and
by
 some
estimates
as
much
as
a
half
a
billion
dollars
(Spangler
2009).

YouTube
pays
 producers
for
content
as
a
way
to
attract
advertising
dollars
to
certain
desired
 content
(measured
by
search
terms)
and
packages
channels
to
drive
views
to
that
 content,
such
as
their
agreement
with
Demand
Media
(Roth
2009).
 NETFLIX
(http://www.netflix.com),
the
by‐mail
DVD
rental
service,
went
into
 streaming
early
in
2005.
They
created
a
deal
with
Roku
to
supply
a
set‐top
box


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 
 
 
 consumers
could
buy
and
that
delivered
their
content
through
an
Ethernet
 connection.
(HotHardware.com
2009).

 It
soon
became
more
technologically
feasible
to
stream
directly
online,
and
Netflix
 uses
the
Microsoft
Silverlight
plug‐in,
which
is
quick
and
adjusts
streaming
fidelity
 based
on
the
speed
of
the
connection.
While
initially
offering
a
limited
amount
of
 streaming
hours
per
month,
Netflix
now
offers
unlimited
streaming
to
each
 customer.

The
selection
of
what's
available
online
is
growing
every
day,
and
 includes
most
television
shows
currently
on
DVD,
and
over
17000
titles.

Reed


6


Hastings,
Netflix's
CEO,
predicts
that
Netflix
will
no
longer
be
mailing
DVDS
in
4
to
6
 years'
time,
instead
delivering
them
over
the
internet
(Wingfield
2009)
which
will
 realize
a
savings
in
physical
management
and
postage
of
the
DVDs
currently
being
 sent.

 Hulu
(www.hulu.com),
another
large
online
player
in
terms
of
providing
streaming
 content,
was
developed
by
a
consortium
of
the
major
studios
‐
NBC
Universal,
News
 Corp.
and
Walt
Disney
‐
in
late
2007
as
an
attempt
to
stake
a
position
and
control
 how
this
content
is
made
available
online,
and
managing
that
content
more
 carefully.

 New
episodes
of
shows
are
generally
available
for
only
a
couple
weeks
before
 disappearing
(which
may
be
in
response
to
the
recent
WGA
writer's
deal
that
insists
 revenues
be
paid
after
a
short
online
window),
and
complete
seasons
of
older
shows
 are
made
available
once
they
are
past
the
profitability
windows
on
DVD
releases.



Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 
 
 
 The
success
of
this
strategy
to
attract
viewers
and
direct
them
to
the
broadcast
 airwaves
for
more
current
content
is
not
clear,
as
each
network
and
each
show
has
 different
strategies
and
access
windows
on
Hulu,
and
the
breadth
of
content
can


7


only
encourage
viewers
to
stay
on
the
computer.

While
viewership
is
still
relatively
 low
compared
to
YouTube,
their
revenue
is
on
par
(estimated
at
$80
million
in
 2008),
in
large
part
because
they
have
the
freedom
to
place
ads
across
their
entire
 content
rather
than
the
only
3%
of
YouTube's
content
(Siegler
2009).
 Regardless
of
any
measurable
profitability,
or
lack
thereof,
neither
of
these
sites
will
 remain
free
for
the
long
term,
and
both
have
announced
intentions
to
begin
 charging
for
at
least
some
of
their
premium
content
(Atkinson
2009).

YouTube
is
 currently
setting
up
a
rental
service
for
its
streams
through
various
Hollywood
 studios
in
competition
with
Apple
and
Apple
TV
(McBride
et
al.
2009),
and
the
 ultimate
success
of
such
a
strategy
will
depend
upon
users
feeling
that
access
to
the
 shows
can
be
compared
to
the
paid
cable
model,
although
this
hasn't
been
 successfully
demonstrated
online,
since
streaming
content
is
still
largely
 synonymous
with
being
free.
 3.
Clouds
 More
recently,
a
handful
of
companies
are
developing
access
streams
through
 channels
that
are
not
over
the
wide‐open
Internet.

Some
such
as
TV
Everywhere
 and
DECE
and
Disney's
Keychest
(all
discussed
below)
function
as
versions
of
a


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 8
 
 
 
 cable
service,
with
pre‐paid
access
to
content
and
measurable
demographics
and
 viewership
habits
‐
and
controls.


 Content
producers
strive
to
make
money
every
time
a
user
views
something.

With
 increased
technological
ability
and
the
full
understanding
that
the
catalogs
of
 content
will
continue
to
hold
potentially
limitless
value,
the
time
is
ripe
for
new
 delivery
systems
to
reclaim
what
users
are
getting
for
free
over
the
Internet.

If
the
 content
is
less
easily
accessible,
and
can
be
delivered
exclusively
by
boxes
or
other
 mechanisms
that
can
be
controlled
and
the
DRM
better
managed,
assets
can
live
 longer
and
be
monetized
at
every
step.

 TV
Everywhere
‐
aka
"On
Demand
Online"
(http://www.comcast.net/tv/on‐ demand/),
popularly
described
as
"Hulu
for
cable,"
is
a
partnership
between
 Comcast
and
Time‐Warner
Cable
companies,
creating
a
licensing
system
that
would
 stream
content
on
demand
online
rather
than
through
their
cable
systems
or
set‐top
 boxes.

Access
through
your
cable
subscription
will
act
as
a
form
of
"control"
that
 can
be
shut
off
at
any
time,
and
requires
you
to
verify,
or
authenticate,
your
cable‐TV
 subscription
with
a
username
and
password,
and
have
a
broadband
subscription
to
 go
with
it.

It
would
make
full‐length
episodes
of
shows
from
Bravo,
AMC,
Discovery
 Channel,
USA,
Syfy
networks
and
others
who
have
deals
with
Comcast
available
 online
the
same
way
viewers
can
already
watch
network
shows
on
their
dedicated
 sites.




Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 9
 
 
 
 Turner,
Rainbow
Media,
Comcast
Entertainment
and
Scripps
Networks
are
the
first
 cable
networks
to
sign
on
for
the
early
trials.
More
recently
CBS,
who
is
not
a
part
of
 Hulu,
has
signed
on
as
well.
This
is
primarily
an
online
version
of
cable,
bypassing
 the
hardware‐based
infrastructure
currently
in
place.

The
content
is
the
most
 important
element
of
this
development,
and
Comcast/Time‐Warner
hopes
to
attract
 viewers
in
the
same
way
the
old
cable
system
model
did
in
the
past.

However
it's
 also
likely
TV
Everywhere
is
only
a
stopgap
for
what
is
likely
to
be
more
radical
 shifts
in
delivery.
 DECE,
or
Digital
Entertainment
Content
Ecosystem
(http://www.decellc.com/).

The
 details
of
DECE
are
still
unclear,
but
it
anticipates
the
fact
that
most
content
will
 reside
in
the
cloud
and
will
be
delivered
through
hardware
set‐up
to
users
who
pay
 for
access.

Presuming
the
complete
shift
away
from
needing
to
deliver
analog
 objects
to
customers,
the
founding
members,
which
include
hardware
companies
 and
most
major
content
producers
and
studios,
intend
to
set
up
a
standard
by
which
 users
will
receive
their
content,
over
"DECE‐approved
devices."
 DECE
founding
members
include
Alcatel
Lucent,
Best
Buy,
Cisco,
Comcast
 Corporation,
Deluxe
Digital,
Fox
Entertainment
Group,
HP,
Intel,
Lionsgate,
 Microsoft
Corporation,
NBC
Universal,
Panasonic,
Paramount
Pictures,
Royal
Philips
 Electronics,
Samsung,
Sony
Corporation,
Toshiba,
VeriSign
Inc.,
and
Warner
Bros.
 Entertainment.
This
is
an
impressive
array
of
partners,
and
the
lynchpin
in
this
plan
 is
the
utilization
of
a
key
locker,
in
which
users
access
their
content.

While
the
press
 materials
suggest
that
this
allows
users
worldwide
and
unlimited
access
to
their


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 10
 
 
 
 content,
it
moves
actual
control
back
to
the
producers,
who
will
be
able
to
manage
 rights
more
easily
and
may
in
fact
restrict
it
under
still
uncertain
circumstances.

 Disney,
a
provider
not
included
in
DECE's
agreement,
announced
Keychest
in
 October
2009.

Disney's
strength
is
their
brand
and
amount
of
unique
and
popular
 content,
and
their
own
key
locker
system
promises
that
users
will
have
access
to
 any
title
or
programming
they
purchase
"forever."

This
suggests
Disney
is
 promising
that
any
show
you
own
will
be
available
on
any
future
device
or
delivery
 system
you
may
want
to
view
it.

Their
literature
touts
the
convenience
of
users
who
 want
forever
access
to
their
library
"without
toting
around
discs
or
data
files"
 (Smith
2009).
 The
key
locker
concept
exploits
an
apparent
disinterest
by
users
to
actually
own
the
 physical
objects
that
studios
manufacture,
or
to
repurchase
new
formats
as
 technologies
and
viewing
habits
change.

It
instead
offers
"infinite"
and
convenient
 access
over
any
current
or
future
device.

These
companies
will
be
doing
much
more
 intensive
management
of
accounts,
levels
of
access,
and
will
presumably
be
 beholden
to
keeping
all
titles
they
have
available
in
a
variety
of
downloadable
or
 streamable
formats,
all
encrypted
or
otherwise
protected.

 Both
these
systems
offer
high‐demand
brand
name
content
to
make
their
initial
 case,
and
will
probably
lease
their
infrastructure
or
technology
to
other
producers
 in
the
future.

Mike
Masnick
of
Techdirt.com
argues
the
language
of
Keychest
 actually
hides
a
more
restrictive
model
Disney
prefers
to
put
in
place,
in
which
they


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 11
 
 
 
 will
be
able
to
decide
on
how
and
when
you
use
"your"
content,
rather
than
you
 (Masnick
2009).
 The
fate
of
such
strategies
will
ultimately
depend
upon
standardization
of
the
way
 users
want
their
premium
content
delivered,
and
a
supreme
optimization
of
the
 devices
and
usability
and
compatibility
will
likely
get
such
systems
traction,
at
the
 expense
of
the
ability
to
control
what
and
where
you
watch
content.

 EPIX
(http://www.epixhd.com/)
offers
limited
access
to
studio
movies
online,
the
 movie‐channel
model
like
HBO
or
Showtime
that
delivers
over
FIOS
Internet
to
 subscribers.

As
exclusively
a
licensor
of
content,
EPIX
is
another
way
to
bypass
or
 replace
traditional
cable
infrastructure
while
offering
essentially
the
same
type
of
 service.


 As
delivery
shifts
away
from
physical
objects
such
as
DVDs
to
digital
files,
these
 companies
are
attempting
to
recreate
the
behavior
of
paying
for
access.

This
 attempt
to
situate
or
create
a
portal
that's
easier
for
customers
to
understand
is
 probably
only
a
half‐way
measure,
and
the
cable
companies
are
working
very
hard
 with
Hollywood
to
make
it
very
difficult
for
people
to
quit
their
cable
services
 (Paczkowski
2009b).

These
new
versions
are
not
likely
to
gain
much
traction
as
 modes
of
engagement
change
faster
than
technologies
can
keep
up.
 4.
Devices
 The
most
secure
way
to
control
access
to
content
that
can
only
be
played
on
certain
 devices
to
actually
control
the
playback
hardware.

Encoding
films
and
other
files
to


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 12
 
 
 
 only
work
on
specific
boxes
or
configurations
makes
hacking
into
the
operating
 systems
and
copying
much
harder.

With
easier
access
and
a
sense
of
"infinite"
 availability,
the
users
may
decide
it's
simply
more
trouble
than
it's
worth.

Objects
 are
moving
out
of
the
hands
of
consumers,
who
increasingly
want
convenience
over
 actual
ownership,
and
if
films
have
the
portability
to
play
over
iPhones
as
easily
as
 their
other
wireless
players,
there's
no
need
for
a
confusing
array
of
similar
 "objects"
anyway.
David
Lazarus
reports
in
the
LA
Times
that
the
FCC
wants
to
push
 legislation
forcing
all
set‐top
boxes
to
compatible
with
content‐provider
networks
 (Lazarus
2009),
which
may
change
the
provider's
ability
to
limit
access
by
device.
 Apple
TV
(http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/apple_tv).

 Apple
has
been
selling
Apple
TV
devices,
which
are
access
devices
that
play
content
 only
meant
for
it,
and
available
through
their
iTunes
store.

The
new
release
in
 October
of
2009
improves
the
user
interface
and
compatibility
with
other
Apple
 devices
(Apple.com
2009).

 Recent
updates
improve
the
Internet
interface
with
iTunes
and
downloading
and
 playing
back
HD
content
and
television
shows.

While
Netflix
has
the
majority
of
 streaming
video
audience
(55%
(Ault
2008)),
iTunes
handles
over
60%
of
all
video
 downloads
as
of
2006
(NPD.com
2006).

Analysts
at
investment
bank
Piper
Jaffray
 have
noted
that
Apple
TV,
with
Internet
connectivity,
is
finally
poised
to
replace
 cable
service
(Elmer‐DeWitt
2009).

As
Paczkowski
(2009b)
notes,
however,
the
 cable
companies
may
have
something
to
say
about
a
new
hardware
device
becoming
 their
competition.


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 13
 
 
 
 Best
Buy
and
CinemaNow
announced
a
DVD
download
service
in
November
2009,
 although
both
are
already
involved
in
DECE.

This
arrangement
would
offer
a
pre‐ loaded
service
in
any
number
of
devices
that
licensing
it,
and
would
not
be
tied
to
 any
one
platform.

Best
Buy
considers
online
movie
distribution
to
be
the
wave
of
 the
future
(Fritz
2009)
and
is
aggressively
trying
to
get
a
foothold
into
the
field,
and
 recently
acquired
Napster.

 The
change
in
users'
buying
behavior
related
to
new
modes
of
engagement
will
 ultimately
dictate
which
delivery
method
succeeds
in
the
marketplace.

Consumers,
 used
to
standardized
television
sets,
record
players,
computers,
and
even
most
MP3
 players,
want
content
of
a
certain
category
to
be
playable.

The
issues
with
licensed
 content
on
approved
players
can
be
seen
as
being
a
factor
in
the
slow
adoption
of
 the
Kindle
readers,
and
Apple
constantly
protects
its
iPod
from
being
mimicked
by
 other
players
(such
as
the
Palm
Pre)
in
order
to
protect
use
of
the
iTunes
store.
 5.
End
Users
 Ultimately
who
will
own
the
content
being
delivered
will
not
be
as
important
as
who
 controls
access
to
it.

Consumers
of
moving
images
have
changed
their
sense
of
 ownership
over
the
material
they
see,
and
this
affects
how
content
is
engaged
in,
 used,
archived,
and
how
it
impacts
culture.
 Film
and
television
programs
will
be
programmable
as
always,
and
a
larger
 selection
will
be
accessible
than
possible
in
home
libraries,
if
not
necessarily
a
more
 diverse
one.

But
moving
such
content
away
from
the
analog
model,
where
it
can
be


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 
 
 
 archived
by
anyone
and
anyplace,
without
the
permission
or
restrictions
of
the


14


producers,
may
retard
easy
access
to
the
back
catalog
of
moving
images.

Once
the
 catalogs
of
the
major
film
studios
were
more
available
at
home
by
home
video
and
 cable,
most
theatrical
repertory
houses
suffered
as
customers
preferred
to
stay
 home
and
accept
what
was
offered
rather
than
commit
to
a
full
theatrical
 experience.

These
new
portals
will
become
standardized
as
the
most
in‐demand
 content
moves
exclusively
to
them
and
attracts
customers.

Delivering
the
most
 popular
content
is
a
proven
hit‐driven
strategy,
and
these
digital
delivery
options
 are
designed
to
be
monetizable,
with
either
monthly,
yearly
or
by
"title"
 subscriptions
to
access.
 Without
easy
and
broad
array
of
content,
however,
no
single
service
or
hardware
 solution
is
likely
to
take
over.

The
services
that
are
not
so
specific
to
single
 manufacturers
or
producers
will
be
able
to
coexist,
offering
easy
and
usable
access
 to
the
cloud
of
content,
akin
to
how
numerous
cell‐phone
providers
all
provide
 various
ways
to
make
phone
calls.

The
larger
question
of
what
will
continue
to
be
 accessible
to
the
general
public
culturally
and
how
is
more
problematic.

Less
free
 access
to
content
and
financial
or
technological
barriers
to
archiving
or
accessing
it
 will
result
in
less
availability
over
the
long
term.

Content
will
be
ubiquitous,
but
no
 longer
available
at
a
moment's
notice.

It
will
be
leased
and
yet
ephemeral,
and
able
 to
disappear
without
warning.
 Another
technological
question
remains
in
that
the
longevity
of
this
new
category
of
 streaming
digital
files
is
still
unknown
(AMPAS
2007).

Digital
objects
are


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 15
 
 
 
 notoriously
short‐lived,
and
there's
no
guarantee
where
the
access
providers
will
be
 in
10
or
5
years,
and
if
they'll
insist
on
supporting
"forever"
forever.

 Will
these
services
be
able
to
supply
versions
in
any
needed
format,
to
be
delivered
 at
the
appropriate
date
and
speed?

Will
the
many
formats
that
HD
copies
exist
in
be
 archivable
and
manageable
and
sustainable?

The
future
may
conceivably
hold
 holographic
or
3‐D
versions
of
programming
as
well,
and
such
new
categories
of
 content
are
already
challenging
home
viewership,
not
to
mention
theatrical
 exhibition.

These
files
could
conceivable
become
unsupported
as
the
financial
 model
surrounding
them
becomes
unattractive
to
the
producers
of
such
high‐ maintenance
content.

Meanwhile,
the
archival
stability
of
"benign
neglect"
 throughout
the
production
and
delivery
lifecycle,
including
down
to
the
user's
end
 in
terms
of
analog
copies,
will
also
be
challenged.

The
above
strategies
ensure
 current
content
is
deliverable
as
easily
and
can
be
exploited
as
much
as
possible
 only
for
the
short‐term,
and
digital
delivery
to
any
device
or
venue,
with
no
friction,
 is
not
a
priority
for
archival
or
legacy
content.
 When
the
current
objects
graduate
to
the
"archival"
status,
will
the
producers
or
end
 users
be
able
to
get
back
at
them,
or
recreate
them?

The
promise
that
much
savings
 will
be
realized
by
re‐monetizing
content
after
having
it
available
for
free
to
users
 indiscriminately
on
the
Internet
is
a
powerful
seducer,
but
much
more
resources
 will
be
spent
in
other
ways
as
yet
undetermined
and
indeterminate
for
the
long
 term,
mostly
in
recapturing
and
maintaining
these
unstable
files.


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 
 
 
 Quincy
Smith
from
CBS
admitted
that
while
Hulu
was
a
"fantastic"
service
and


16


reached
millions
of
viewers,
CBS
didn't
partner
with
it
because
it
simply
makes
no
 financial
sense
(Kafka
2009).

With
so
many
options,
users'
viewership
habits
will
 dictate
only
so
much
of
how
content
is
saved,
archived
and
consumed.
Decisions
 made
by
the
producers
will
steer
that
habits
to
a
larger
degree
than
the
viewers
 realize,
in
the
short
term,
and
for
years
and
years
to
come.
 
 
‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐


 

 REFERENCES:
 AMPAS
(Academy
of
Motion
Picture
Arts
and
Sciences).
2007.
The
digital
dilemma:
 Strategic
issues
in
archiving
and
accessing
digital
motion
picture
materials.
Beverly
 Hills,
CA:
Academy
of
Motion
Picture
Arts
and
Sciences.
 Apple.com.
2009.
"Apple
introduces
Apple
TV
3.0
software
with
redesigned
user
 interface."

Press
release,
Apple.com.
October
29.
 <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/29appletv.html>.

 Atkinson,
Claire.
2009.
"Chase
Carey:
Hulu
to
charge
in
2010."
Broadcasting
&
Cable,
 October
21.

 Ault,
Susanne.
2008.
"Consumes
still
prefer
DVD,
other
options."
Video
Business,
 October
10.
 Elmer‐DeWitt,
Philip.
2009.
"Munster:
an
Apple
TV
set
by
2011."


Brainstorm
Tech
 blog,
Brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com,
August
20.

 <http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/20/munster‐an‐apple‐ television‐set‐by‐2011/>.
 Fritz,
Ben.
2009.
"Best
Buy
launching
digital
movie
service
with
CinemaNow."
 Company
Town,
Business
section,
Los
Angeles
Times,
November
2.

 Kafka,
Peter.
2009.
"CBS
Digital
boss
Quincy
Smith's
not‐quite
exit
interview:
Hulu's
 a
great
service.
That's
part
of
the
problem."

Media
Memo
blog,
AllThingsDigital.com,
 October
28.

<http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091028/quincy‐smiths‐not‐ quite‐exit‐interview‐hulus‐a‐great‐service‐thats‐part‐of‐the‐problem/>.


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 17
 
 
 
 Helft,
Michael.
2009.
"YouTube:
we're
bigger
than
you
thought."

New
York
Times,
 Business
section,
October
9.
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/youtube‐ were‐bigger‐than‐you‐thought/>.
 Hothardware.com.
2008.
"Inside
the
tech
of
the
Netflix
player
with
Roku."

News,
 HotHardware.com,
May
29.

 <http://hothardware.com/News/Inside_The_Tech_Of_The_Netflix_Player_With_Rok u1/>.

 Lazarus,
David.
2009.
"Coming
soon:
Internet
via
TV."
Business,
Los
Angeles
Times,
 December
6.
 Madden,
Mary.
2009.
"The
audience
for
online‐video
sharing
sites
shoots
up."

Pew
 Internet
&
American
Life
Project
report,
PewInternet.Org,
July.
 <http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/13‐‐The‐Audience‐for‐Online‐ VideoSharing‐Sites‐Shoots‐Up.aspx>.
 Masnick,
Mike.
2009.
"Disney's
Keychest:
is
giving
back
your
fair
use
rights
with
 more
DRM
really
a
step
forward?"

Techdirt.com,
October
23.
 <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1232356641.shtml>.
 McBride,
Sarah,
Jessica
E.
Vascellaro
and
Sam
Schechner.
2009.
"Movie
Studios
 discuss
ways
to
rent
films
over
YouTube."
Technology,
The
Wall
Street
Journal,
 September
3.
 NPD
(The
NPD
Group
Market
Research).

2006.
Press
release,
October
24.


 <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_061024.html>.

 Paczkowski,
John.
2009a.
"YouTube:
the
money
pit."

Digital
Daily
website,
 Allthingsdigital.com,
April
3.

 <http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090403/youtube‐the‐money‐pit/>.
 Paczkowski,
John.
2009b.
"Apple
triple
play:
iTunes,
App
TV
and
Apple
Television."
 Digital
Daily
website,
Allthingsdigital.com,
August
20.
 <http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090820/apple‐triple‐play‐itunes‐app‐tv‐and‐ apple‐television/>.
 Roth,
Daniel.
2009.
"The
answer
factory:
Demand
Media
and
the
fast,
disposable,
 and
profitable
as
hell
media
model."

Wired
Magazine,
October.

 Smith
Ethan.
2009.
"Disney
touts
a
way
to
ditch
the
DVD.
Purchase
of
a
'keychest'
 movie
would
allow
on‐demand
viewing
from
multiple
devices."
Business,
The
Wall
 Street
Journal.

October
21.
 Siegler,
M.G.
2009.
"Hulu
could
catch
YouTube
in
2009
‐
in
revenue,
not
traffic."
 Digital
Beat,
VentureBeat.com.
November
17.


Brown
‐
Hands
Off:
Access
Without
Physical
Possession
 18
 
 
 
 <http://digital.venturebeat.com/2008/11/17/hulu‐could‐catch‐youtube‐in‐2009‐ in‐revenue‐not‐traffic/>.
 Spangler,
Todd.
2009.
"YouTube
may
lose
$470
million
in
2009:
analysts."
 Multichannel
News,
April
3.


<http://www.multichannel.com/article/191223‐ YouTube_May_Lose_470_Million_In_2009_Analysts.php>.
 Wingfield,
Nick.
2009.
"Netflix
boss
plots
life
after
the
DVD."
Technology,
The
Wall
 Street
Journal.

June
23.


 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124570665631638633.html>.
 
 


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful