

Y Combinator’s Short-sighted War Against Hollywood - brackin
http://benparr.com/2012/01/lets-work-together/

======
Vivtek
Oh, come on. Seriously? _Film and TV are here to stay._ Forever. All the non-
parasites actually making film and TV are assured of continued employment.

All PG is talking about is taking out the parasitic channels and blocks that
impede content from being made and enjoyed if they don't get their pound of
flesh. All the arrogance that makes them demand not only that law be rewritten
and diplomacy bound to their will, but that anybody daring to speak against
them be castigated as enemies of democracy and capitalism and presumably Mom
and apple pie.

They deserve to shuffle off into the dustbin - let's get back to having fun
and making things. That's what PG is after, and _he's right_. Everybody knows
the emperor's naked - those fat cats do _nothing_ creative, and _nothing_ to
improve anything at all except their bank balances; they're rentiers so deeply
to the core that they see nothing at all wrong with wanting their money back
after buying the President of the United States when he failed to dance to
their tune for three minutes this week.

Good riddance to the lot of them.

------
quanticle
I disagree with all three of the main points.

First, while the "heart" of Hollywood (whatever that is) may be in its
aspiring stars, they have little control over what the executives do. Aspiring
actors and directors know that there are many others waiting to take their
role - if they don't agree to the terms (however terrible) there are plenty of
others waiting to take their place. Hollywood is a monopsony. They are a
cartel whose absolute control of the market makes it more difficult for "the
heart and soul of Hollywood" to pursue their dreams. Breaking up the Hollywood
cartel would make things easier for aspiring actors and directors.

Second, while "war may rarely be the solution", that doesn't mean that there
is no place for war. If the other side is willing to do whatever it takes to
destroy you, you have to fight back or be destroyed. SOPA/PIPA showed that
music and movie industry have absolutely no sympathy for legitimate internet
users. If it comes down to a choice between accepting the SOPA/PIPA and
fighting the media industry with every tool at my disposal, I'll choose to
fight any day of the week.

Finally, Ben Parr brings out the "what about the masterpieces?" argument. He
misses the point that masterpieces like Schindler's List and Planet Earth
exist _despite_ Hollywood, not because of it. The movie industries are not
interested in taking "unnecessary risks" on a movie that may turn into the
next Citizen Kane. Remember, "masterpiece" movies are not often popular or
profitable. It's much safer for studios to fund yet another proven,
moneymaking sequel. Breaking up the Hollywood cartel would allow those with
higher tastes for risk to enter the movie funding business, making it easier
for future masterpieces to gain funding.

------
kapilkale
Maybe the YC article was worded a bit aggressively. But I don't think the OP
has sufficiently defended his claim that YC's RFS is short-sighted or
irresponsible. The OP doesn't address the RFS' main points:

\- that Hollywood is on its way out, because film and TV as forms of
entertainment have largely remained the same despite significant technological
advances. Movements like SOPA are indicative of the industry's inability to
evolve with the times.

\- that startups aiming to find better or cheaper forms of entertainment are
likely to be extremely big companies in the future, largely by replacing the
role in society that Hollywood currently plays.

\- and that YC should fund companies it thinks will be big.

That line of logic seems sound.

------
simonw
I didn't interpret the YC piece as "let's kill Hollywood" (despite the
provocative headline) - I saw it more as an observation that support for SOPA
is evidence that Hollywood is already in decline, so now us a great time to
invest in whatever will replace it.

~~~
dmoy
Agree 100%. The actual content of the article is very positive and proactive.
Rather than saying "I'll pay you to egg them" (not literally), they're saying
"I'll pay you to do better stuff than them". The title should probably be
something like "Beat Hollywood (at their own game)" instead of "Kill
Hollywood," but w/e.

------
mindcrime
I don't necessarily agree with some of the sentiments in this article; but
upvoted anyway, because it's worth a discussion.

FWIW, I believe that this bit

 _I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of amazing aspiring actors,
actresses and musicians through the production companies I advise. Their dream
— their only dream — is to be on that stage and entertain millions. Proposing
to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the dreams of these
entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support them. That is
irresponsible._

begs the question of whether the current Hollywood system is the only way that
the entertainers, crews, writers, etc., can profit from their work and achieve
their dreams. I see no particular reason to believe that such a thing is true,
and - to my notions - this undermines the entire argument that YC's "war" is
short-sighted.

This article is also ignoring the fact that one could interpret the YC
response as nothing but self-defense. It would be one thing if this call were
totally unprovoked, but that's hardly the case here.

~~~
derwiki
Small nitpick that doesn't detract from the overall quality of your post:
begging the question doesn't mean "raises in response the question." Begging
the question involves circular logic. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question> (I usually point to
<http://begthequestion.info> but it seems to be down right now)

~~~
dionidium
_This_ is a war you'll definitely lose. The "raises in response the question"
meaning isn't just the most popular usage, it's the _only_ usage most people
are aware of.

I'm aware of both meanings and still intentionally use the "wrong" one
occasionally . It's well understood by both the speaker and the listener, so I
don't think it hurts much. In fact, pointing out the error seems like more of
a distraction.

~~~
derwiki
Sorry. I appreciated it when it was pointed out to me for the first time, but
I shouldn't have assumed.

------
shaggyfrog
The premise of the article -- and its title -- is fundamentally flawed. The
war's already started. Whether or not Y Combinator decides to write that
declaration or not. As pg wrote, Hollywood intends on defending its decaying
industry by attacking the basic architecture of the Internet. And make no
mistake, they will fund another bill. And another. And another.

The only question left is to decide what side you're on.

------
AdamFernandez
I think Ben is confused regarding what the intent of the RFS is. This is not
an assault on artists. It is important to separate the talented from the
studios that profit from artists work. The studios (and by extension
production and distribution) are the ones that Y Combinator has declared 'war'
on. Other industries are being disrupted in a similar fashion. This is nothing
new. I think many in this community realize the damage that the MPAA and the
RIAA can cause now. Why not hasten their demise through a process that is
already playing out?

~~~
mminer
There certainly seems to be confusion about what the RFS advocates "killing."
Is it the production and distribution system, or the medium itself? Hollywood
can mean many things, and some of the RFS seems to be championing alternative
delivery while other parts encourage creating alternatives to the medium
itself. Those are two very different goals, and it seems that Ben has
interpreted the latter as the RFC's message..

------
re_format
I would imagine aspiring actors want fame more than fortune.

How does an entertainment world not dominated by Hollywood threaten this?

Answer: It doesn't.

What we have with Hollywood is execs who obsessively control marketing and
distribution channels and thereby get to determine who becomes famous and who
does not.

For many people it's just impossible to imagine things any other way. But that
does not mean it is actually impossible for things to be another way.
Hollywood is a very recent development in the history of entertainment.

We could take the execs out of the system, and the audience would still be
able to decide who becomes famous and who does not.

The audience is the final arbiter.

Entertainment execs are only middlemen.

------
jennifer35mm
Continued from above..

5\. MARKETING. We touched on this in the Cost of Production bullet, but let’s
expand on this. Studios have hundreds (and in some case thousands) of
employees dedicated to nothing but marketing. At any given time a studio could
be spending upwards of over a billion dollars just marketing their current
slate of films that are set to be released. This is where most of the risk in
film financing occurs because it costs VASTLY more than just the production of
the content. In fact, many films are made and then shelved until a later time
(or never released, or go straight to video, or are only released in a foreign
market, etc.) because either the marketing is too risky, there is another
studio releasing something similar, one of their actors got caught in some
damaging publicity, etc. Timing is CRITICAL to the release of a film. And, if
a studio knows they will be vying for Oscar contention (which they apply for
and then spend another $987359872460982456092486 campaigning for votes.. you
think the ACTUAL political campaigns are bad, you should see the campaigns for
the oscars!) then they release that particular film around the end of the
year. It gets them qualified for Oscar contention and they hold it back so
another studio has less chance of competing against it.

6\. Measurement. The least sexy of the bullets is arguably the most important.
Studios and ESPECIALLY television networks positively rely on measurement to
gauge the success of their product prior to or post, distribution. (Generally,
prior for film, post for television). Surveys, pre-screenings, press feedback,
etc. is heavily relied on by studios to understand the best possible release
strategy for their product. Even more money is spent on this endeavor and is
billed to the film’s cost center.

Millions of people work in this industry. Thousands of companies rely on the
entertainment economy to survive. A war on Hollywood would also mean a war on
Joe’s Camera shop, where Joe has been renting cinematography equipment for the
last thirty years. And also a war on Miguel’s Lighting, which rents lighting
packages to studios and also helps out independent filmmakers because they
have the revenue to give back to those passionate individuals that have a
story to tell but don’t have the money to make it. And, all the other
thousands and thousands of freelance professionals that depend on each project
to pay their rent, their car payment, their water bill and to eat.

If you think of Hollywood as some Leona Helmsley world of mean, then you are
both right and very wrong. Getting to the top of this food chain is like
climbing Mount Everest, without a guide.. twice. It’s that fucking hard. So
sometimes you encounter a little arrogance (ok a lot), and some entitlement.
But MOST of the people that work in this industry are hard working, shit-
shoveling, awesome, fucking people. They are your next-door neighbor, your
son, your friend. And they choose to work in this industry because most of
them can’t imagine working in any other field. They love what they do, they
pay their dues (and then some) and they work harder than you could ever
imagine.

I once worked on an independent film when I was living in NYC, trying to make
it as an assistant director. I remember one day in July being in a 10x10 room
with no air conditioning, no windows, 1000 watts of light, on take number 28
with 17 other people in the room. We started the day at 6:00am and we ended
that day at 3:00am. On our feet all day in 98 degree weather, 104 degrees
inside the room. And we fucking loved it. And you know how much I made that
day? 50 bucks…. Fifty.

So, although I applaud Y combinator for finally shedding some light on the
media start-ups that have been vastly ignored over the past years by VCs
(HELLO! We need some funding people!), what they don’t understand is that
Hollywood isn’t just a few folks that make up an entire global economy worth
$2 trillion dollars. It’s a community of millions of people, representing
millions of jobs that have fed the economy of this country for almost a
hundred years. And that’s worth fighting for.

While I significantly oppose SOPA and PIPA in their current forms, the people
of this country have already sent a message to our government that this is not
the right legislation. Y Combinator should spend their energy and their vast
reach across the capital investing landscape to fund smart media companies
based on their merits, not on their short-sighted agendas.

------
Jach
What blazing rhetoric. This is not about blowing up buildings, finding execs
and their families and executing them slowly, or occupying a land mass. This
isn't a war against Hollywood, so using typical anti-war talking points like
"war isn't the answer" and "just find a compromise regardless of who is
_right_!" and "don't give in to eye-for-eye revenge!" (I'm surprised the
author didn't use a Gandhi quote or two) don't fly as counter-arguments. It's
also not a simple eye-for-eye retaliation, for one reason because this isn't
war, but another reason because the eye-for-eye retaliation would be for the
government to nationalize Hollywood and subject them to the same crap NASA has
had to go through since the last moon mission or so. This posting is a great
example of why using a shaky metaphor is a bad idea, because that metaphor
quickly turns into an equals sign as far as arguments go when it shouldn't.

When PG says "Kill Hollywood", it's meant in the exact same sense as "Kill
Microsoft". That's the only "uh oh" in his whole posting, it doesn't say
"declare war on Hollywood". Neither Hollywood nor Microsoft comprise the
entirety of the entertainment industry and the tech industry no matter how
much they want to and no matter how much the average ignorant random-person-
on-the-street might believe they already do, so clearly it's not even a desire
to kill off an industry, just to remove a particular member's influences from
it and from everything else.

------
jennifer35mm
Ok, get a cup of coffee, sit down and get comfortable. I am about to go into a
very long dissertation as to why Y Combinator's statement is both seriously
short sighted and potentially dangerous for any new media start up. Ready? Ok
let's go.

As the CEO of a media start-up and someone who has been deeply entrenched with
every aspect of the Entertainment industry for the last 18 years, I have a
deep understanding of "Hollywood" and the ecosystem it represents. So, let's
review:

Content Production - While there are some very legitimate ways to make pretty
great content on a low budget, there are only a few really successful ways you
can do that. First and foremost, the cost of the film or video by itself is
only one very small factor. It takes relationships, knowledge of the industry,
access to talented individuals and a whole lot more money to market your
content in a way that will create the revenue you would actually require to
consider it a successful product. So let's review what it takes in "Hollywood"
to make a product that will (hopefully) resonate with viewers:

1\. Money. Whether it's a few thousand dollars, or hundreds of millions of
dollars, there are no productions, and I mean none, that cost nothing to make.
You have to make some kind of investment whether it is in software, the camera
(even an iphone), an internet connection to distribute it, what have you. So
even with depreciated assets, you're still investing money somewhere. But,
let's come up a few hundred feet and talk about the content that is actually
made in Hollywood, with that kind of spending power:

2\. Cost of Production. This is not just the money spent on the production,
but the actual cost of goods sold. The first phase includes the development,
the pre-production, the actual production, the post-production and the ground
level marketing (shopping it around film festivals, etc.) The second phase is
what happens after your content has been acquired. Now we're in the really big
money. Now we're in P&A costs, which stands for Prints and Advertising. This
is the cost of marketing your product. To put it into perspective, a film like
Napoleon Dynamite was made for around $500K. It was acquired for $3m at
Sundance. Then the studio spent another $xx million to market it. Napoleon
Dynamite went on to be one of the most successful independent films ever
created. It made over $140m in the video market alone. THIS. Is an outlier.
Now let's talk about the median products. The ones that Studios personally
finance and market. Let's say they spent $30m to produce a film. Most of that
money goes to the talent and the UNION crews that work on them. (We'll get to
the unions later.) They distribute the $30m picture across screens worldwide.
Worldwide the picture makes $45m. Not bad, right? Wrong. Because that $30m
production cost another $80m to market. That's right.. almost three times the
cost of the actual production. And the $45m it made worldwide? Well that's
only $22.5m back to the studio because the theaters take HALF the ticket
sales. HALF. They do almost NOTHING to market the film, get paid to host the
film, charge $9823598746 on snacks and they get HALF THE FREAKING REVENUE from
the film. So, the studio’s net LOSS on that product is $87.5m. That’s what we
like to call in this industry.. a tank. You can spend $30m on a film, get some
of the best talent you can think of, and still it falls flat. Why? Well if you
can answer that, then there is a job waiting for you in Hollywood. No one
really knows for sure what the general public will accept as an amazing film
until it’s released and the ticket sales and social buzz generate the outcome.
I have seen some amazing films that I thought were some of the most creative
and concept-forward films I have ever seen, and they tanked at the box office.
It all comes down to the public’s taste at any given time.

Continued below...

------
ggwicz
_Proposing to destroy Hollywood will also destroy the livelihoods and the
dreams of these entertainers and the crews, writers and creatives that support
them. That is irresponsible._

I think it's "irresponsible" that in 2012 we still have a "spot" for
entertainers and artists to make a living. That's nonsense. By progressing
from horse to car, a lot of horse-related jobs declined. But literally an
_entirely new paradigm of societal structure_ emerged, arguably, for the
better overall (Just an illustration, I know it's rough but bear with me).
Maybe if Hollywood collapses many Hollywood folks will suffer, and I
understand that pain. But an open Internet acts as a stage beyond any
geographical limits and can create, again, an entirely new open frontier for
artists and entertainers all over the planet... _and_ the necessary staffs and
execs for them individually.

Hollywood doesn't support the Internet. Even the "young execs" who "get it"
and "embrace" the thing they supported the censorship of only support it in
the sense of trying to build walled gardens to preserve their last chance of
money-grabbing. That's it. They support the Internet that helps them, but if
something happens to zig where they want to zag, well...we know their
reactions by now. 1 Don't be fooled. The article is fair and good, but the
arguments inside are empty at best. Fuck Hollywood.

------
jennifer35mm
Continued from above..

3\. Relationships. This is a big one, and although it can get very
complicated, I’ll try to make it as simple as possible. In order to make a
great piece of content, you need to have talented writers. Those writers
depend on casting directors and the actual Director to cast the right talent
to make their stories come alive. The producers need to ensure that the best
casting directors and most talented writers and directors are attached to the
project. The casting directors rely on talent management agencies to sign and
nurture the best talent out there, and maintain integrity with how they
present their clients. The talent themselves spend thousands and thousands of
dollars on creating a better product (their craft, so-to-speak) with acting
classes, headshots, travel, etc. (I feel an ecosystem pictograph would work
best here, but you’ll just have to visualize this instead.) And even greater
than just what we call “above-the-line” costs (Producers, Directors, Writers,
Talent), you also have to have the infrastructure available for all the other
thousands of jobs each film employs including but not limited to the Director
of Photography (camera), his/her crew of camera assistants, the grips and
gaffers (lighting and rigging folks), script supervisors, location manager,
production managers, drivers, production assistants, accountants, animators,
editors, special effects, props, visual effects, stunt men/women, wardrobe,
vehicles, omg I could go on forever. Sit through the credits next time and
you’ll get a new appreciation for what it takes to make even a shit film. And
the thing is.. they are ALL REQUIRED ASSETS.

4\. UNIONS. Often striking fear in the hearts of people everywhere, unions are
not to be messed with. They are there to protect their members and ensure
their labor is treated fairly and compensated appropriately. That’s not to say
all production is union production, because it isn’t. In fact, pretty much all
independent film and television (and even studio and network productions) to
some degree uses non-union labor. But, unions are there to also ensure you
have the highest quality of talent available. You have to demonstrate
experience to be a part of a union, and then even when you get the job as a
union paid employee, you still need to prove that you’re worthy to continue
being hired for the next project. The unions are a way to provide checks and
balances for the best of the best in their fields. And it works. Making a film
is like starting a business from scratch. You want to hire the best and
brightest people in the business to be successful. Sometimes those are union
people and sometimes those are your friends. But in any case, there needs to
be some measure of trust in the quality of work you will receive.

------
fleitz
Destroying Hollywood would not destroy ability for entertainers to entertain.
If anything it would probably increase the ability for an entertainer to
entertain.

Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute them.

Destroying "hollywood" according to the ideas proposed would likely open up
millions MORE opportunities for entertainers to entertain and would likely
change the market dynamics from a winner take all market dominated by a few
"stars" to a more yeoman farmer type system where everyone does OK.

"Hollywood" makes entertainers sign grossly unfair contracts at the beginning
of their careers justified only by the winner take all market they propagate.
Hollywood is unnecessary in an age where anyone can put blender on their
computer, buy an HD video camera and start making movies. You don't need huge
budgets to make decent movies. Hollywood keeps most artists starving in order
to gain leverage, if most artists did OK it would dramatically change the
landscape at the bargaining table.

The average artist will do better with out hollywood at the expense of the
"stars".

After Hollywood is dead there probably won't be any entertainers who have
"millions" of fans but likely far more that have tens of thousands of fans.

If Hollywood dies because of the RFS it will be because the people voted with
their feet and decided the offerings of the RFS are superior to the offerings
of Hollywood. I believe that's called a "free market". It's not up to PG, me,
Ben Parr or anyone else to decide what is best for the people, it is up to the
people decide what is best for them. Any projected funded by YC will only
succeed to the degree that it provides a better experience to consumers.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _Hollywood doesn't really "make" movies so much as market and distribute
> them._

If that was a complete listing: Then destroying them would be a pretty
straightforward matter, because startups do distribution and marketing like
the best.

The problem as I see it: I think you missed a function. Hollywood is a
specialized VC community. Their investments are movies.

No amount of Y-combinatoring is going to supplant the money machine, without
building a brand new money machine.

~~~
learc83
>Hollywood is a specialized VC community.

That's true, but we dont need a VC community that specializes in handing out
tens of millions when, thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of
thousands.

~~~
rprasad
>thanks to technology, movies can be made for tens of thousands.

I was laughing until I realized you were serious. Of course it's possible to
make a movie for a few thousand dollars. But most movies at that budget aren't
worth watching. Quality (especially the talent) is expensive, and that is fact
in every field.

~~~
jeswin
Why should talent in movies be paid millions, when the truly outstanding in
other fields are paid a lot less? The simple reason is that total expenses in
movie making and distribution system are so high that these payouts seem
reasonable and it makes sense to get popular actors at the prices they
(artists) demand.

This system works well for the companies and the top rung artists. Ripe for
"disruption".

~~~
nedwin
"when the truly outstanding in other fields are paid a lot less?"

You mean like sports stars?

The command higher fees because having their name attached to a project
reduces the amount of marketing expenditure of a project and increases the
projects chances of success.

Aside from fees for high-paid actors and directors though there are still a
LOT of people needed to produce a quality film: screenwriters,
cinematographers etc.

~~~
learc83
>You mean like sports stars?

Sports is probably the closest thing we have to a true meritocracy. If you're
an incredibly talented baseball player you'll have statistics to back it up.

Because of this I'd wager that almost all the top tier baseball players are
currently engaged by major league teams.

However, acting is more subjective. It's much harder to objectively
demonstrate that you are a top tier actor, so there are likely many top tier
actors available for hire who aren't making millions.

------
wj
If Y Combinator is serious about this they should seriously consider asking
John August to speak at Startup School this year. He writes movies for
studios, produces his own films, makes iPad apps, and blogs about all of it.
He has a better understanding of all of the sides of these issues than almost
anybody.

He has had a few posts over the past week that might be enlightening to some.
<http://johnaugust.com/>

~~~
MaysonL
Get him in a room with Louis C.K. and Horace Dedieu. Heck, send Louis and John
to Asymconf in April.

------
awt
I didn't detect any anger in pg's post. To me it seems more like a stock tip.
PSST!! Hey! Invest in entertainment via the internet. Sell Hollywood short,
etc.

------
tikhonj
I don't think the RFS is revenge over SOPA. Rather, it notices a great
capitalistic opportunity. The point is _not_ that Hollywood is evil but rather
that it is _vulnerable_.

Basically, the aim is not to kill entertainment but to wrest control of it
away. This is more akin to Kodak getting "destroyed" by digital cameras than
the internet starting a vendetta.

------
andyakb
This seems like a blog echoing what many say in regards to so many dying
industries; "Think about the jobs this will take away!" YC isnt telling people
to destroy Hollywood out of spite, they are saying to destroy Hollywood
because there is a huge opportunity for disruption in their industry.
Innovation will always prevail, and the more you fight change, the faster you
will be left behind. Dont destroy Hollywood because they attacked us, destroy
Hollywood because their lack of innovation leaves us opportunity.

------
indrax
What this misses is that the 'attack' is really just code for 'vigorously
outcompete', so all of his points reduce to 'please think of the buggy whip
makers'.

This makes it extra silly to talk about aspiring actors and the Art. It's
unlikely that Y Combinator will fund anything that really replaces cinema, but
if it does _it will be amazing_.

------
nekojima
The way to "destroy" Hollywood is to encourage decentralization, as has been
occurring for the past twenty or thirty years. With film & TV production
moving outside of southern California to Canada and other US states, the
localized production power of Hollywood has been disseminated to other
regions. The distribution for high-budget films currently remains in
Hollywood, but increasingly the Internet (as distribution, financing &
marketing outlets) and in the long-term local demand in China, India, Africa &
the Middle East will begin to pull global distribution control away from
Hollywood even for big-budget movies.

It is the decentralization of movie making that will destroy Hollywood, not
start-ups.

~~~
devs1010
I started to write a comment of my own then saw this one. You are spot on with
this. What needs to happen is exactly what you are saying. However, I think
humans in general tend to like to see the same actors in movies time and time
again so finding a way to decentralize production but still keeping popular
actors involved can be a bit of a challenge. From what I understand, the
actors unions are probably currently limiting some talented people from
becoming well known actors so balancing this out could help as well, however I
don't think we can get away anytime soon from the appeal that certain people
have to audiences, however the rest of it is all interchangeable, in my
opinion, writing and special effects work can be done anywhere as can the
actual filming of the movies.

------
mindslight
I really don't understand this idea of "come together to try to find common
ground" - there is no common ground to be had. Hollywood wants to control
content and charge every viewer, which is fundamentally at odds with the
Internet. (It's of course not at odds with Google, Facebook, Netflix, and all
the other prime-time proprietary services that deliver over the Internet,
which is perhaps what allows the misunderstanding to continue). I hope content
creators can continue to make a living in the future, but restricting every
individual's computing and communications devices is not how it will happen.

------
curiouscats
It seems to me that the most effective solutions might well be not very
splashy at all.

If people can easily find content they would like (that are controlled by
those that are not bent on attacking the people - so like the crazy behavior
we see supported by the large hollywood distributors) they will watch it. They
will substitute it for content they would watch that funds the anti-society
behavior now funded by those watching "Hollywood" and big label music.

I am not so anti-Hollywood that I will not watch some great show (yet). But I
would certainly favor content that isn't paying for anti-society efforts.

If there were good ways to discover content I would like and note what is
managed by those that respect society instead of those that don't I would use
it. I would pretty easily just chose to try out stuff that is not going to
support those that will use income to attack society. I doubt I would boycot
anything from those anti-society organization (yet). But even if we just carve
off a portion and build up those that produce entertainment for society while
respecting us that is a good thing. And I believe if it started the power
would build upon itself. Those engaging in bad behavior would lose in the
marketplace and likely adjust behavior. Maybe they wouldn't - in which case as
we build up good alternative entertainment we can just drop dealing with their
organizations altogether.

------
drcode
> The heart of Hollywood is in its aspiring stars, not its execs.

This is like arguing that we have to keep on fighting wars because army bases
are valuable to the economy.

> War is rarely the solution.

PG is talking about competition, not war. The word "war" never appears in PG's
essay

> Entertainment and art are relative.

Good- Then Hollywood can keep attracting customers, even if there is
competition from elsewhere. What are you worried about?

------
brackin
Interested what the HN community thinks of this one. I believe getting the
major players onto a platform allows for mass adoption but once the platform
is open for other content producers you can bring the major entities onto the
same level as the small content producers leading to a more open market,
taking some of the leverage away from the content companies.

This is why Netflix, Hulu and YouTube are making distribution deals but also
creating or licensing exclusive content to give them more leverage. If Netflix
exclusively owns a couple of hit shows they suddenly have a lot more leverage
when licensing content.

If you want to take down Hollywood you have to help them monetize first, they
do create great content so instead of taking them down this model puts them in
line with other content creators. I think it's the same with the fact Apple is
opening iTunes Connect up further.

------
tibbylickle
Apologies in advance - I'm a programmer and not (yet) a businessperson, so
outlook may be naive. I would argue that whether or not you take an aggressive
approach is not really the point - it all amounts to changing the face of the
business whether you are working with them or against them. The important part
is that Y Combinator have taken a stand of some sort and indicated that there
is money in pursuing this goal. Once the ball gets rolling and some evidence
of success starts coming in, other approaches can be taken.

The ideal, for me, would be a massive outpouring of different ideas about what
the tech industry can do. Some will fail, but ultimately there will be a
better chance of finding a solution that works better than what we have just
now.

------
signalsignal
I remember someone, somewhere saying that the problem with politics is that it
uses a lot of energy and accomplishes little. I how long Internet forums can
suppress and censor political discussion until eventually a topic is so
inviting that the members of the forum will eventually succumb to the
temptations of politics and declare, "WAR!"

This is a startup idea: software to determine when and how long a predicted
meme will overwhelm a company culture allowing investors to short the stock
while the meme, as a cultural virus, runs it course. Sort of like a company
health predictor using the semantics of current events as units of
measurement.

------
MarkTraceur
* Actors can act in non-Hollywood movies and TV shows. In fact, they can act in Creative Commons-licensed stuff, too. Why is that a problem?

* Progress? Hulu and Vevo place the same digital content we were once able to own and manipulate into chains. We are no longer even allowed to _watch_ it at our leisure.

* Great works still happen without big industry.

I think this author doesn't understand that YC isn't attacking the idea of
movies and TV shows--they're attacking the moronic copyright-related actions
of the industry.

------
jfoutz
Not to be excessively trite but, Planet earth is BBC right? The state
sponsored entertainment of the British empire?

------
OoTheNigerian
What I understood from PG's definition of Hollywood is "the old way of doing
the music and entertainment business"

If Ben understands that, I guess his post would be entirely different.

------
superkinz
Boo ben.

------
zeroboy
Let's dismiss this article and move on. PG has made an important invitation to
all entrepreneurs within earshot and this article just adds noise.

