[peterhunt]

But I, and many other people, am willing to pay for these big budget movies even if I have to sit through ads. I like big-budget flicks.

[alextingle]

If you have to pay the same to see Avatar & The Blair Witch Project, then sure, the big budget movies seem like better value. But only a vast price fixing monopoly, supported by ever more draconian legislation, enables that equivalence.

The price of movie distribution is fast approaching zero. If big budget movies had to compete on a level playing field, I suspect they would rapidly become unprofitable.

[philwelch]

I like Bell Labs and indestructible black Western Electric telephones, but did they justify the Bell monopoly?

[peterhunt]

Hollywood movies (mostly) don't have interoperability issues or network effects.

[alxp]

They just try to pass laws to make interoperability (format shifting) a criminal offence.

[peterhunt]

You're setting up a false argument here -- they don't do anything to restrict indie filmmakers from distributing their content.

[sesqu]

Actually, a number of people have complained that they do. Very few indie movies are in the same theaters as Hollywood movies, though whether that's effected by the latter depends on who you ask.

[Iv]

By forbidding to use old art for music or even movie extracts, they set the bar higher for independent movie filmmakers.

[philwelch]

No, they just raise money for colluding plutocrats to bribe corrupt politicians into trying to break the Internet.

[sliverstorm]

Agreed. I'd take one Dark Knight over a hundred low-budget decent flicks any day.

If you believe low-budget is the way of the future, nothing is stopping you. If you believe big-budget needs to be killed by regulation et al before your superior low-budget future can compete, I wonder if you have things mixed up in your head.

[Joeboy]

Have I lost track of the plot here somehow? Aren't we talking about regulation to ensure big budget flicks can compete? This may be me failing at irony or something.