Someday I will follow her
Someday, not tomorrow.

threat to industry; good development from cultural standpoint

The greatest threat from an industry/business standpoint is the Internet and its capacity to make the distribution apparatus of the cultural industries almost useless. The industries will no longer be able to distribute what they please. Most of the profits of the industries today come from the fact that they distribute/delivery cultural texts. Because distributors are the bridge between producers and the audience, they have tools of maximizing profits at the same time that producers and audiences lose in terms of autonomy and money. The film and music industries exemplify these powerful and asymmetrical relationships in the industry. In music, for instance, record companies usually have long and disproportional contracts which limit the artists ability to produce and even quit the company.

By being able to have music and film online, artists are able to reach audiences directly, not making use of the industrial apparatus of duplication of the industry, and therefore they charge less, or not even charge, and still make more profits. What would be the function of managers, producers and all the bureaucratic machine of the industries, if texts can be delivered directly? Media companies are much like banks, lending resources and its apparatus to artists, and they charge high for the return. The film industry distributors, for instance, charges fees, interest, overheads, and many other ways to maximize profit at the cost of producers. The chance for delivery independently of the industry ends with the process of holding a production and the process of marketing on top of expectations. The latest Radiohead and U2 were online months before they were released, and movies like Spider-Man could be watched on the web in other countries before its theatrical release. Indeed, artificial scarcity promoted by the big media conglomerates is threatened since the internet opens the doors for more artists. Internet, therefore, threatens companies in the delivery of established artists, new stars that are to rise someday and the look for new artists.

Even TV and radio stations are in danger with the internet since streaming of audio and video become more available. Why having to face sponsors in regular radio stations if a kid in the interior of Arizona may be able to make more interesting transmissions? On the other hand, it is not that easy to find shows in the format of TV series and sitcoms, but this seems to be a question of time, until independent producers organize themselves. If music, film, drama, journalism, books and radio transmissions are already available, why not thinking about texts in the framework of TV series online?

The fact that gigantic conglomerates drop of its outlets stories that may be harmful to themselves is over too. In other words, delivery of different voices in the spectrum is available with the Internet since it¿s global. Bejanmin Compaine says that the Internet is oligopoly proof. For instance, the story of the sexual scandals during the Clinton era was available first in a small web-site, ¿The Drudge Report.¿


The threat seems even more real if we consider that the Internet is a project started by the Department of Defense in the 1960¿s, and one of the goals of its creators was to have such a wide web of information that could not be destructed even if a nuclear war happened. Today, the Internet is a global device, and it seems virtually impossible to have it down. So there is no way to regulate the loss of distribution of the media industries.

What helps the industry; what is a problem from a cultural/social standpoint


From a social/cultural standpoint the main problem with the cultural industries in the US is concentration and integration. These ideas are based primarily in the wave of marketization that reached the US in the mid-80¿s, and found as its most illustrative moment the 1996 Telecommunications act, which relaxed regulation in the media industries and allowed mergers, conglomeration, vertical integration and cross-ownership to happen. Some of the topics covered in the act are the freed of the local Bells created by AT&T in the past, legislation favoring current media such as easier licenses renewal and extension the period of license and the give away of the digital spectrum. After the Telecommunication act, media companies increased their ownership of TV and radio stations in every important market within this country.

All this created a concentration of markets. Clear Channel, for instance, owns more than 1200 radios stations and has only 200 employees. In the film and music industry, market concentration has similar figures. The top 5 record companies own 87% of markets. The Big Five ¿ Viacom, AOL-Times-Warner, News Corp., Disney and Bertelsmann ¿ engage in many practices of oligopoly, and instead of actually competing against each other, they are united by lobbying groups and joint-ventures. Viacom, for instance had in 2002 22 joint ventures with the companies that are supposed to be its rivals.

There are many other problems with concentration. First, because few companies share the entire market and they work as any other type of business, they create artificial scarcity in terms of types of shows presented and in terms of choices across the different types of media outlets. It¿s fundamental for country to have diversity if it is to have a lively democracy. Many may argue that we have never seen before such a profound proliferation of media, but in many cases, proliferation does not mean democratization. The question of scarcity is exemplified by Hollywood and its preference for types of scripts that are easily identifiable and have proved to be successful. What we see, then, is the creation of very duplicative material, and the muting of diverging voices.

Indeed, the growth of such companies represented a loss for the rights of citizens in this country. Media conglomerates do not perceive and treat people as citizens, but as consumers. In many instances, such companies carry their own political agenda through their outlets, and issues that might be important for the public interest, such as public education are simply dropped. Ben Bagdikian says that usually socials issues are dropped because media conglomerates are more found of conservative policies. Talk show radios have, for instance, become a propaganda machine for the right-wing, and liberals have been associated with radicals. This is a problem especially for broadcasting, considering that it is a limited, yet powerful, resource.

Conglomeration, in fact, limits the very capacity of outsiders to enter the industry and text creators reach broader audiences. Media industries control distribution process of media, and it is not a coincidence that distribution is the most important aspect of the industry. From the film industry, which distributors by bridging producers and exhibitors find devices to maximize profit and control access, to the music industry, which record companies impose asymmetrical contracts for artists in order to distribute albums, conglomerates control who will reach audiences. In fact, such amount of power is reflected in the loss of autonomy of text creators, who have to attend the demand of major corporations in order transform their creations in some kind of profitable and marketable monster. By working close with each other and governments, media corporations present no choice for newcomers other than working as subsidiaries. Access, therefore, is a very hard thing to achieve.

An obvious solution for conglomeration and concentration is a tougher regulation that imposes, for instance, that the owners of TV station interests are not allowed to own radio interests, radio moguls should not be allowed to have interests in the film industry, film industry owners should not be allowed in the music industry, and so forth. Movie production and distribution under the same owner should also be made illegal. Indeed, the power of distribution in the industry must be offset by some form of regulation at some point because this is the hottest issue in the industry. Finally, the number of stations/studios/label per owner should also be reduced, and local production should be boosted.

Peco aquela pausa para homenagear um amigo....
Sao poucas as pessoas que conseguem marcar nossas vidas. No frescor de minha juventude colegial, a empolgacao era contagiante para assistirmos o show do Metallica (sim, eu ja gostei bastante deles) no dia 8 de maio de 1999 no Anhembi. Por razoes que nao entendo muito bem, o Zoio, que ate entao nao havia demonstrado afinidade por qualquer tipo de musica distorcida, resolveu comprar o ingresso. Comprar e esnobar, afinal o que o Zoio nao faz com o intuito de esnobar? Ele foi o primeiro a comprar enquanto muitos dos membros da nossa turma, incluindo esse pobre diabo que vos escreve, deixaram para o ultimo minuto e ficaram a merce dos abutres dos cambistas. Bom, no frigir dos ovos fomos todos ao show. Todos exceto o Zoio que foi barrado pelo impeto maternal de sua progenitora, a dona Fatima. Desde entao o dia 8 de maio virou um simbolo das babanices do Zoio. Em estandarte de ouro, celebramos no dia 8 de maio todas as cagadas do mundo alheio. E mais ainda, esculachamos aquele que sempre foi o nosso alvo maior de piada: Bruno Eduardo Barros de Araujo, o vulgo Zoio.
Parabens Zoio. Entoamos o coro "6 ANOS QUE O ZOIO PERDEU O SHOW DO METALLICA COM INGRESSO NA MAO PORQUE A MAE DELE NAO DEIXOU."
Deixo aqui um flyer comemorativo produzido por Jose Silverio, um dos amigos que tambem estavam no Anhembi 6 anos atras.
Alias, nd mais simbolico do que comemorar o dia em que a mae do Zoio imortalizou nosso amigo no dia das maes.
E para nao deixar passar em branco, nada mais normal do que uma vitoria do meu tricolor lindo em cima dos Gambaticos do PipoKia em pleno dia das maes. E nada mais normal do que o Sao Paulo derrubando mais um tecnico dos gambas... Chupaaaaaaaaaa curintianada!!!