 |
ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
4.28.03 memo menos Last Friday, the entertainment industry suffered a major setback. In a lawsuit filed by the major record labels, movie studios and music publishers against GROKSTER and MORPHEUS(actually STREAMCAST NETWORKS), a federal judge ruled that those shared network servers do not violate copyright laws, despite providing software to millions of users allowing them to copy digital copyrighted files on other users hard drives. The ruling leaves the powerhouses in the entertainment world to go after individual users who download music or movie files without paying license fees for their use. Such litigation is already underway, with THE RECORDING INDUSTRY OF AMERICA suing VERIZON for the identities of its’ customers suspected of pirating digital files over that network. Things are going to get nasty, as the entertainment folks get greedy in their quest for shrinking entertainment revenues. The problem is, they are looking in all the wrong places to find the blame for why people don’t buy music anymore. (While the movie industry is not suffering the same effects as the recording industry, just yet, it may soon be in the same boat as high bandwidth and speed trickle down the consumer pipeline.) Consumers don’t buy compact discs anymore because they are tired of getting ripped off by record labels and recording artists. . For years record companies have been reaping huge profits on the discs, which cost a fraction of the $15 or $18 price tag. How many CD’s or albums for that matter do you have on your bookshelf at home that you paid $15 for, and you played once, never to be heard again? How many discs did you buy thinking a certain song was there, only to find that the version you heard, and went in search of was a remix not on the disc? How many recording do you own that don’t even contain the lyrics of the music contained thereon, or even a picture of the artist? How many CD’s in your collection are 1-hit wonders, with not even 1 other song on the damn thing worth even hearing? How many times have you gone in search of a song, or an artist without any luck in finding it at the stupid record store? How many times do consumers have to be ripped a new a-hole before they’ve had enough? The record companies have all the power. They have a product that consumers want. In fact, consumers want it so badly they are willing to break the law to get it. They need to price it fairly, insure there is value in it, and make it available instantaneously. That immediate availability is one of the main attractions to music downloading. But free digital music is not without downsides. Digital music files vary widely as to quality and accurate labeling. And the digital files don’t come with lyrics or pictures, or any information at all about the music or the artist. This tangible aspect of owning music should not be overlooked. When I was a child, music was no less in demand. Nor was the immediate nature of the demand for it. Not having NAPSTER or GROKSTER at my disposal, I used to record to audiotape right from the radio, or perhaps from a friend of mine who went out and purchased the particular song. Invariably, the possession of the song on that audio cassette was not the same as owning the single. The song was hard to find on the cassette, the cassette didn’t have lyrics or anything about the artist, it was difficult to file away in a way that it could be retrieved when I wanted it, and so I would end up buying the record. Things are not so different today. Along those lines, APPLE COMPUTER is launching a digital music service today, where for 99 cents, users can legally download songs. Such a service will certainly address the issues of immediacy. But will the files have the same standardized quality? Will their database include enough artists to make it relevant compared to the availability users have become accustomed to with NAPSTER and GROKSTER and the like? And will the fees be reasonable enough to prevent those who are now spoiled on the concept of music as some free public commodity from continuing to use the free options that are still plentiful on the web? Even if this service, and others that may become available meet all of these challenges, the record companies still have plenty of business to do selling discs in the traditional manner. They need to abandon the notion of suing customers and instead, start giving them a product with value and a fair price. Isn’t that what capitalism and the American way are all about? 3.28.03 Memo Meños MICHAEL MOORE must have been at least a little bit surprised Sunday night during the Oscars at the reaction he got for his tirade against GEORGE BUSH and the "fictitious war". I mean, just 3 nights earlier he gave the very same speech to a rapturous crowd as he received the ELEANOR ROOSEVELT AWARD at the Beverly Hilton. In stead of boos he got a standing
more about Moore @ THE FICTITIOUS WAR Memo Meños 3.24.03 Excuse me. I thought Hollywood felt uncomfortable donning the fancy clothes, walking the red carpet and dolly gagging for 3 hours over whose the best when we were at war. It only happened to be the worst day of the military campaign for the troops, yet I saw limos. I saw designer gowns and gaudy jewelry. I even saw the stars doing the walk and stop for photographers. I saw nearly all of the best arrive in great anticipation, as if this really was about the best. We saw less than the best from STEVE MARTIN, though he was clearly not in the best of situations. Though, I didn’t hear much from the bests about politics.
Not that the evening wasn’t all about politics. I mean, how powerful must MICHAEL DOUGLAS be in Hollywood? He saw his beautiful pregnant wife star in a sizzling song and dance number with equally voluptuous QUEEN LATIFAH. He then witnessed his same beautiful spouse taking the best from countryman SEAN CONNERY, only to nearly stop the show with his father, in a wonderfully choreographed bit to introduce the best best to his best’s movie, CHICAGO. Best that.
Not that CHICAGO didn’t deserve best. But how is it that CATHERINE is best, but RENEE is not? And why not ROB MARSHALL best, when his film takes best in 6 categories, all of whose recipients praised director as being the best? Yet, MARSHALL, not best?
Not that he was better than MARTIN SCORSESE. How could he be? Wasn’t this supposed to be the night SCORSESE would finally be best? Ouch! Did his epic, GANGS OF NEW YORK get bested, or what? Nominated in, what, 43 categories, and what did it win? Not best in any! None best. None. To be what many people consider the best, yet no best from the best must be, less than best, don’t you think? A lot less.
Not that it mattered much to SCORSESE, who was seen party hopping at the best of the OSCAR parties, VANITY FAIR’S. Just the best, here. And this year it must have been better, without the press there to document the stars on their best behavior.
Like failing to recognize one of the best actors alive, other than with an "honorary" best. Now that’s not really best at all, is it? I mean if he wasn’t best in BECKET, or LION IN WINTER, or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, or GOODBYE MR. CHIPS, or THE RULING CLASS, or even THE STUNT MAN, then what does best really mean? PETER O’TOOLE begged the bests that he was "still in the game" and please postpone their "honorary" best to allow him the opportunity over the next 10 years to "earn one".
Or like recognizing ROMAN POLANSKY. For 25 years, POLANSKY has been a fugitive felon from justice. Others, not bests, which may have committed similar crimes, are serving time, deprived of their freedoms, their dignities, their reputations, and of wine and cheese.
And do tell, how could the bests boo a fellow best, whilst giving his best speech. Yet they rose for a standing ovation for a best in exile from the law.
Not all bests are created equally, apparently. Not ADRIEN BRODY, who was clearly best of the bests. Some bests just do it better. Bottom line-it might just have been best if the awards show had not been held after all. A real fan 3.20.03 The 75th Annual Academy Awards will have a distinction all its own, no red carpet, no bleachers full of adoring fans, no celebrity interviews on the way into the award show, and to a large part, no glamorous fashion. The stars have spoken, and they don’t feel comfortable talking with the press, many of whom have assembled from around the world to cover the Oscar ceremony. They just don’t think it’s right to engage in such frivolity at a time of war. Many of Hollywood’s A-list has even gone as far as putting the kibosh on the gimme gowns, and the borrowed baubles and bangles. That’s right-no glitzy gowns and no Harry Winston jewels. Think of it as the entertainment community’s sacrifice for the troops. Mind you, they are still going ahead with the silly popularity contest. The nominees need to know who won for Pete’s sake! And the governor’s ball will still take place, though we haven’t heard what the stars will be gnashing on this year. My guess is WOLFGANG will still be throwing pizza dough and disemboweling sturgeon for the big event. No war rations here. The big question, if there is no fashion and no celebrity drivel, why have the stupid event at all. ABC and THE ACADEMY are not waiving the outlandish $1.3 million fee for a 30-second advertisement on the show. Nor are they donating the revenue, or any part thereof to the Department of Defense, or the Iraqi people. The only change as a result of the war and the somber mood, in which we find ourselves, is that the stars are restricting access by the press. Something’s not right about that at all! I mean, movie theaters aren’t closing down so that we all can show respect for those fighting to protect our freedoms. DISNEY, and FOX, and SONY and WARNER BROTHERS and PARAMOUNT and all the rest aren’t suspending ticket sales and rental fees in light of the war. BRUCE WILLIS and VIN DIESEL aren’t renouncing their mega-million dollar paychecks for films on which they are working. Why should they be spared the wrath or the prying interest of the media, war or no war? After all, the social contract the public makes with celebrities is that we agree to fawn and feign concern over their delicate lives and egos. We covet their image, see their movies, and pretend interest in every breath, as they become superstars with super bank accounts and ridiculously extravagant lives. We forgive them, nearly each and all, for their substance abuse problems. We might even overlook their trailer trash upbringings and various other dirty laundry. In return, they sell their souls, their privacy, and their autonomy. They are in a sense, public property. Almost like the royals in England, only with veneers (good, though fake teeth). We see them sunbathing in the nude and mugging for drunk driving charges. We get to see pictures of them getting married, some dozens of times. Even when they don’t want us to, CATHERINE ZEDTA-JONES, we still see them. We see them at their best, and more importantly, at their worst. (Many times, their worst is right here at the Academy Awards). Do you think JULIA ROBERTS makes $20 million for 3 months of pampered "work" because of her talent? Come on, she earns that kind of loot because people want to see her, in her own skin, miserable or not. And people want to see the foolish fashion choices she might make on this, the big night. It’s like a gallery opening, or a graduation. They’re all there, in all their glory. And they need to walk the walk and talk the talk. It’s the deal. It’s what we "paid" for, and it’s good for the country any other time of the year, why not now? When is it ever relevant to know for what designer CHER is hawking herself? Or for what pair of shoes MERYL STREEP loses that steely demeanor? Or which leading man is dragging his mother to the event of the year. It’s not need to know stuff, really. And it’s never important, except perhaps now. That’s what the court jesters, and the mascots, and the JENNIFER LOPEZES of the world are there for. As long as celebrities can rake in the bucks while we’re at war, then they need to keep "earning" them, if you will, while we’re at war. That includes doing the stupid interviews, donning the "free" jewelry, walking the "cool" doo around, looking garish in the hideous slinky dress and obliging with a pirouette when asked, by nearly every entertainment reporter on the planet, "Can we see the back?" Otherwise cancel the whole damn thing. Do they think it’s any nobler to watch and see who in this cliquey club gets another silly statuette? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MANMADE MULTIMEDIA, INC.
|
|
|
|
| webmaster: Tony Be | Reel Hollywood | Reel Gay | Photos: Luis Lopez, Tony B, Cesar S, Bill M, Reina Lopez, Michaell Skiff CB Smith-Dahll |