I think it's the same antiestablishment song and dance of previous generations just rebranded for this one.

The internet is not the death of paid content any more than the Betamax tape was.

I think as writers, we can try to educate the public to the fact that yes, there are little people behind the corporate veil. And not give away the store in contract negotiations with the evil, soul-crushing sugar daddy corporations.

Free (or near free) distribution is inevitable. DRM has proven to be mostly useless in stopping piracy.

As screenwriters and filmmakers we need to look for the opportunities.

A proportion of viewers will always steal/borrow content. Ignore them. Who will actually pay? What value has to be added?

Why the resurgence in 3D? Value add that can't be ripped off with a camcorder. Further down the line you have interactive web content and DVD releases with alternate cuts, genuinely interesting special features and packaging, more interaction with the audience and fans.

It has been demonstrated that people will still pay for quality and convenience of delivery. Hence the success of cable at the expensive of broadcast TV. Bands that give away music tracks free on their websites still sell the same tracks on iTunes because people like the convenience of iTunes.

How will it work in film or TV? Somebody out there has the next great idea to move the format on to the next evolution.

Digital levels the distribution playing field. With no film prints or physical media, how many producers can step up and bypass traditional studios? This is an opportunity to cut out a swath of middle men. Digital provides the potential for transparent accounting. Residuals based on actual purchases/views rather than the current opaque system of deals, averages, guesses and outright lies.

It won't be easy, but I'm optimistic that talented writers who embrace the changes will make a good living.

I propose a simple solution to "free content". Why not allow the audience the opportunity to invest in the production of content they like? If film, music, and television allowed for public investment they could match the speed at which new information is produced and distributed. They would also create an interest within their audience to protect and support it.

The strength and weakness of Hollywood right now are these channels of communication. It's the chattering geeks whose network of blogs and twitters start drumming up interest in a film the moment they see a teaser trailer. Unfortunately, it's also this kind of networking (and fever pitch) that drives illegal distribution. Geeks will tell all their friends about an upcoming release, and then rip them a copy of it. So why not close the loop? Allowing for some kind of vested interest in a film's box office and DVD sales could potentially turn the mob against itself while actually perpetuating its viral appeal, i.e., they'll chatter about it even more if they think they can make a buck off of it. And, a person who invests a couple grand in the production of a film isn't going to want to see their investment threatened by piracy. In fact, there's a good possibility that those holding shares in a film would be working as diligently (and creatively) to stop illegal distribution as those who are trying to perpetuate it.

Besides, think of all the insanely original projects that would see the light of day if early-adopting film geeks were driving their production with investments. Conversely, think of the crap that might have been made better if its value were sunk the moment it was announced who was directing it.

Well, I'm a bit old fashioned, and can't really see paid movies going away, but things are definitely changing. Anderson brought up record companies several times, and how badly they misjudged the digitalization of music. The other thing he points out is that despite the fact that there is so much music available for free out there somehow people are still paying to download songs. Radiohead gave away an album and let folks name their price and made a killing on it. I'm hoping Hollywood has learned from the record companies' mistakes, but only time will tell.

All I know is that I would pay for Season 2 of True Blood. But no one is asking for my money.

I think the studios will have to give up to the new model. I don't think we'll ever lose the $300M blockbuster from theaters as IMAX, etc will draw people in because you can't get that experience at home.

The key that I see for the future is a fully digital distribution model that forgoes PRINTS and uses disks.

That in and of itself will save studios millions per picture.

And by using YouTube\Facebook\MySpace as an advertising tool HAS to happen as newspapers are dying a slow death and most people int he most lucrative demographics are getting their news from the Internet.

The web is also a money saver as you only need to host a file and not a "tear sheet."

Soon, we'll see more content with viral ads like The Dark Knight. Ther'es one pay model - which is hits per ad - and it can be accurately counted liek every other hit on the Internet. SO if you buy 1 in 10000 hits on Facebook and you start getting more visits to a linked page or site, you still only pay for 1 in 10000.

When I'm interested in a new movie I go to the Internet for info. Most people do. And contrary to popular industry opinion the majority of people will pay for content - especially if it's not a tinny camcorder recording.

Then providers are open to selling related items like halloween costumes, mugs, pens, T-Shirts, etc. and charge less for the content - or not.

Another change may require more studios to become involved in exhibiting as they get 35% off the top of every dollar.

There is a major problem with “free.” That is the fact that free also equals value-less. When anything is provided for free, eventually the consumer looses respect for the item and discounts the value of the item to zero.

Because economies work the way they do, everything comes down to a cost benefit ratio. That is why scripts are purchased. Someone put in the time to write the script and his time is worth something. How much is it worth today, pre production? After theater release? After DVDs? The true worth comes down to understanding the long-term value of the product.

The difference is in who values the script and in what terms. That was the entire crux of the WGA strike a couple of years ago. The studios not valued the content for particular mediums, but then realized they could make additional profits by publishing the content to a new medium. The writers, rightfully (or is it writefully?), wanted their share. The studios said they’d already been paid. On to negotiations that eventually paid off for the writers, for the time being.

As content producers, we have to be cognizant of potential production and marketing costs in order to maximize our profit. The stronger the story, the fewer the sets and the easier it is to market that killer logline; the more potential profit there will be after the final cut.

But what about the “free” content that already exists, such as YouTube?

What if viewing was free, but you couldn’t search, how many people would be willing to sift through the 1000’s of videos uploaded each day to find the one that everyone says you should watch? At the same time, if they decided to charge a fee of $25 per month to view and search videos, the site would probably go under within a few months. It’s the consumer’s application of value.

On the other hand, if they used a model similar to the iPhone and YouTube kept uploads free (that helps protect them legally) charged $0.99 per search, or $10.00 for unlimited monthly searches and a daily list of most watched videos, how many people would subscribe? My guess is millions. And most of those subscribers wouldn’t search for or watch more than a handful of videos in any particular month. The vast majority of those who upload videos would subscribe, if for no other reason than to watch what they uploaded.

Establishing a good price point is critical to the future of any content driven business. The more we, as the content producers, know about the costs of producing our work and mediums we may be published to by the studios, the better we’ll all be at accurately valuing our work.

I agree with the comment that this is just the betamax issue a few decades later.

Apple/Itunes has been profitable because of their own innovations.

I personally enjoy the availability and ease of getting films via netflix and the web. I used to own a few hundred dvds, but resale values were so horribly low because of the saturated market with cheaply valued dvds I was driven away.

I believe content will be the determining factor for any writer and any movie.