Atoms & Bits: Cinema in the Age of Digital Distribution
Seeing a movie used to be an event. Until the early 1970s, film distribution regarded only the movie theaters, and even nickelodeons in early film history. Then home viewing became popular with the advent of VHS then DVD. Suddenly, people could skip the theater and wait for the movie to come out on DVD and then own it. This technology allowed people to share films illegally on the Internet for anyone to watch without having to pay for it. This piracy, and it’s subsequent “anti-piracy” laws, has called into question the current legal situation under which the film industry operates and whether it is relevant.
Who owns a film? The director? The producer? Should anyone own it? Since so many people work together to make a film, it’s difficult to say who should get paid for it. However, there seems to be another issue with this system. In order to prevent any potential loss of capitalization on a product, distribution companies really hone in on copyright laws. In order to use a song in a film, it can run upwards to millions of dollars. I believe this is the wrong way to think.
Art has always been something that draws from other art and influences. Capitalizing off of these exchanges gives off the message that there is something unnatural and wrong about this, but what is wrong with it? Art should not stop at the creator’s vision, it should continue past and include its interpretation and reception from culture. For example, when Wes Anderson uses The Rolling Stones’ song Playing With Fire in The Darjeeling Limited, it’s a contextualization of what that songs means to Anderson, not a claim to ownership. Even with this, Wes Anderson had to pay a large sum of money to use that song, because it wasn’t his.
Lawrence Lessig’s ideas about “remix culture” are quite valid and on point. The story of Stephanie Lenz and her home video reverberates throughout our culture and further pushed the issue of copyright. Copyright laws, though initially created with good intentions, are not used for their original purpose and are outdated. They no longer are used to encourage ingenuity, but rather to limit it. The moment that was captured in Lenz’s video could not be replicated without that song, because that song is what made that moment special. By using it, she was creating something unique — a piece of art.
Cinema does the same thing, but at huge costs. Instead of simply being able to use a song that could mean something to a sequence, they have to pay large sums of money for it. This puts independent filmmakers at a disadvantage because they have to either use small-time music that they can get rights to or create their own music.
Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu are great innovations. They allow people to essentially borrow as many movies as they want for a small monthly price. This satisfies the industry’s desire for compensation and the viewer’s desire for control and interaction. In the near future, people will have access to any movie they want to without having to buy each individual one on DVD. As long as most movies are available through streaming, it will help deter illegal downloading and pirating of movies. People are more willing to pay 10 dollars a month for a lot of movies, than 10–20 dollars for a single movie they may or may not enjoy.
I think cinema distribution will only continue in this path. With this model, ownership fades and sharing is encouraged. And when ownership fades, perhaps society will come to see that art should be shared and the “remix culture” will gain more popularity in legal terms.
