FIRM Discussions

August 31, 2000 - February 10, 2001

Should DOJ Investigate the Hollywood Oligopoly?

The MPAA wielding the legal sword
3:02 am thursday august 31, 2000

I believe that the the DOJ should investigate the Hollywood Oligopoly because.

1) The MPAA is bullying the citizens of the USA, This is evidenced by the information located here:

This bullying is being done through the enforcement of an extremely idiotic law sponsored by the MPAA, called the DMCA- Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

2) The MPAA has set up an eloborate distribution and licensing system with DVD's that sets an exorbitantly high barrier for entry for those who wish to make software that plays DVD's. The list is so long In could go on forever. The recent actions by the MPAA illustrate the hypocrisy of the Movie Industry when it comes to our First Amnedment Rights.

BTW glad I found this site in the process of researching these issues.

here are some more links:

Movie Ratings Scam
John Cones
5:37 pm friday september 1, 2000

Well finally, the Federal Trade Commission has figured out what many of us in the industry have known for some time, that the “content codes voluntarily administered by the film, music and video game industries are poorly enforced.” The August 29 September 4, 2000 issue of The Hollywood Reporter reports that “FTC investigators also found that underage children are frequently sold tickets to R-rated movies even though the MPAA’s own code bans youths under age 17 from entering such movies unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.”

In a clear example of why MPAA spokesperson Jack Valenti, can’t be trusted, a “poll conducted by the FTC found that parents want more information than is currently provided by the code.” Valenti has, on the other hand, been saying for years that an exceptionally high percentage of parents (according to MPAA polls), approved of the movie ratings system. The MPAA poll, unfortunately, just did not ask the more important question, “Would you want more information about the content of the films you are considering for viewing by your children”. If the MPAA had been more straightforward and asked that question years ago, it would have “discovered” the same thing the FTC now knows.

A Senate Commerce Committee staff person said “If in fact the (ratings) have been an exercise in duplicity – if they haven’t been used to protect kids but (instead used) as a smokescreen – then these industries are going to have a difficult time.” This will be interesting to watch.

John Cones

Deceptive Advertising
John Cones
5:40 pm friday september 1, 2000

A final version of an FTC report on movie and video game advertising is scheduled to be released in the near future. According to an article in The Hollywood Reporter (August 29- September 4, 2000) President Clinton ordered the FTC to investigate the entertainment industry’s marketing practices in the wake of the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.

Senator John McCain will be asking entertainment industry CEOs to explain their marketing strategies at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee in mid September prompted by the FTC report which “is expected to condemn the way movies, sound records and video games are sold to children.”. “The report is expected to criticize the industry for attempting to sell adult products to children. A draft report on the investigation shows that movie studios advertised violent R- rated movies during television shows with pre-dominantly teenage audiences. It also shows that producers of violent video games touted products suitable for ‘mature’ users in magazines aimed at young teenagers, according to sources familiar with the report.”

This sounds a lot like the practices of the tobacco industry, which is now in a lot of trouble. Many of have long maintained that the film industry, along with music and video games have been similarly polluting our cultural environment, specifically with respect to the messages of violence being sold to kids. Now, let’s broaden the investigation to include a look at employment discrimination practices (i.e., Why is there so little diversity at the top in one of our democracy’s most important communications media – the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry?).

John Cones

John Cones
1:54 pm monday september 4, 2000

A friend of mine invited me to accompany her to see the movie “Sunshine” recently. She said it was advertised as a romantic epic. Notwithstanding this issue of deceptive advertising that the Hollywood movie industry is well known for, this movie was another example of why it is not healthy for any particular group to dominate or control the ability to produce and release feature films. This one was released by Paramount Classics. This film was another in a long line of movies that tell what is essentially a Jewish story, focusing on the question of whether assimilation is the best tact to take when living in a culture dominated by non-Jews. In this particular instance (turn of the century Hungary), the dominant culture kept changing from that of the Emperor to Fascists/Nazis to Communists and so forth. Some members of each generation of the Jewish family at the center of the story sought to assimilate with varying results and ultimately concluded that it is better to be true to oneself, one’s family and one’s own cultural/religious heritage, while along the way, trusting no one. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with Jewish stories, particularly as in this case, when they are well written and acted. But in a democracy where all segments of our multi-cultural society should have the same fair and equal opportunity to tell their stories through important communications media such as film, no particular group should have greater opportunities to tell their stories through film than others. The fact is that over the years, the Hollywood- based U.S. film industry has not allowed Native Americans, Italian-Americans, Arab-Americans, Irish-Americans, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, African-Americans, Latinos, Whites from the American South and other non-Jewish segments of our society to use film as a medium for telling their stories, certainly, not nearly as often as Jewish filmmakers. Since film is a unique medium that tends, to a large extent, to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of its makers, it is essential that all interests in our society have a fair and equal opportunity to create and distribute their own interesting films. Hollywood, on the other hand, has been dominated (and/or controlled) for nearly 100 years by a small group of not very religious, politically liberal Jewish males of European heritage, and just like most people in the same or similar positions of power (even if such power is gained illegitimately) these individuals tend to favor stories of interest to them. They have also tended to hire people with similar backgrounds (again, most people would probably do the same). But, as a nation, it is not in our collective interest to allow any narrow group (no matter how defined) to control or dominate a powerful communications medium like film and to limit the messages being communicated through this medium to those messages such a small, not very diverse group favors. There is a certain amount of arrogance involved in taking the position that one group’s stories are more interesting generally than the stories of others and arbitrarily allocating an industry’s resources so that this controlling group’s stories are favored over the stories of the others. Over a period of time, such a pattern of behavior could be fairly characterized as an effort to use film for purposes of propaganda, since the medium’s controlling group gets to communicate its message fairly regularly and other groups generally do not. Diversity is the key, and in Hollywood there must be diversity at the top.

John Cones

The Hollywood Community Needs to Come Clean
1:43 am friday september 8, 2000

I agree wholeheartedly with John Cones and he is a courageous man who is NOT ALONE.

I've had agents say to my very face - 'It's too bad you weren't Jewish or you'd be successful now' or 'You really need a Jew in your camp or you won't make it' or 'You got to have the protagonist say 'Jesus' somewhere in the movie to make the movie Kosher.' ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS ABUSE ANY FURTHER. The Christian Coalition, the NAACP, MANAA, and the ANGLO LEAGUE are all coming together to fight this. We will fight Hollywood before we fight another country on behalf of Israel. We're fighting this insane brainwash fed by 88 cable channels of their condemning, insidious garbarge (Howard Stern and Jerry Springer).

Can you imagine if a Christian, or an Anglo, or an Arab, or an Asian said this? They would have the ACLU and People for the American Way after them.

Here are some additional facts besides all of the others. In 1999, over 90% of all the feature films (over 250) were either written, directed, or produced by a Jew. Over 90% of the DGA membership are Jews.


Hollywood vs. Government
John Cones
11:25 am thursday september 28, 2000

Another in a long line of confrontations between Hollywood and the government is occurring as of this writing. The FTC and Congress are complaining that the film industry is marketing violence to children. The film industry is saying, oops, we didn't mean to and we'll try to be more careful in the future. Congress and the FTC should read "Movies, Politics and the Role of Government", a history of similar episodes throughout the exitence of Hollywood. This history demonstrates that Hollywood is all about manipulating government, and over the years has been quite successful at it. This latest incident is not likely to be any different. Why? Because the current occupants of government do not have a sense of history regarding the consistent behavior of the Hollywood control group.

John Cones

It Awakens!
James Jaeger
2:05 am sunday october 1, 2000

It's about time Society has finally awoken to the violence- oriented movies being pushed at you and I . . . and worst of all, the children.



Marketing: Documents illustrate the methods used to lure underage viewers to theaters to boost the take for "Disturbing Behavior."

"Hollywood's expertise in driving kids into theaters to see violent R-rated films by pulling strings to create buzz among teens is vividly illustrated with MGM/UA's promotion of the 1998 movie "Disturbing Behavior," internal studio documents reveal."

" The documents show that MGM/UA marketeers went to great lengths to orchestrate a word-of-mouth campaign to make sure underage teens were aware of the movie. The previously undisclosed documents, obtained Friday by The Times, provide the most detailed and damaging accounts yet in the federal investigation into how Hollywood markets violent movies to teens."

Above article (which referes to MGM/UA, one of the seven MPAA studios), and related articles can be found at:

James Jaeger

Piracy and the MPAA
James Jaeger
7:38 pm monday october 9, 2000

Regarding the announcement that POP.COM will close its doors (Source URL N310.HTML), as Paul Gibbons and I wrote in the MID business plan several years ago, the Internet is NOT an opportunity for the major players but probably only the Independents as they have less to risk and more to gain. To wit: From the MID Business plan at



Video-on-demand represents the greatest threat to the MPAA studio/distributors and their subsidiaries because, by its very nature, the medium is digital and the Internet is highly unpredictable and unregulated. This opens the door to even more piracy than that which is already happening with video cassettes, especially in the foreign territories. Since the studios have a considerable financial investment in their pictures, at this time, it is much safer for them to continue using their existing infrastructures to exploit their product and amortize their debts than to risk such by putting their movies on the Internet.

One perfectly mastered digital copy of TITANIC, for instance, inadvertently released on the Internet, could be endlessly pirated and disseminated all over the world thus reducing its exploitation value considerably. For this reason alone, the Company is reasonably sure the major studios will not be serious competitors for video-on-demand over the Internet for years to come, at least over the DSL-enhanced phone system. Also, since the studios have invested considerable sums of capital in their major revenue-generating operations (i.e., home video, theatrical, cable infrastructures), these distribution channels will most likely continue to be emphasized. The only basic near-term changes will be that DVDs will replace VHS video cassettes and the NTSC television standard will be replaced by the digital HDTV standard. These changes are in process at this writing."

James Jaeger

Star-backed entertainment Web site will close as company fails to find buyer
AP Business Writer

"LOS ANGELES (AP) --, the much-awaited Internet entertainment site backed by such Hollywood powerhouses as Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard, is closing its doors before it even opens for business. . ."

"The message is that traditional Hollywood media skills don't necessarily translate into building a great Internet business," said Eric Scheirer, a media and entertainment analyst at Forrester Research."

On the Net:

Hollywood Dodges Responsibility
John Cones
11:57 am thursday october 19, 2000

The Hollywood Reporter recently promoted the point of view of a Washington columnist that Hollywood's selling of media violence to children was not really so bad, at least compared to the failures of gun manufacturers with regard to gun safety. The columnist complained that even though the Senate Commerce Committee has conducted five hearings into ways the entertianment industry damages the nation's chldren, it has not conducted a single hearing on how the firearms industry damages the same children. That's like telling the police officer who stops you for speeding that it's not fair for you to get a ticket since others were driving faster. Grow up Hollywood and accept responsibility for your part of the cultural corruption, and let somebody else take care of the other contributors (see The Hollywood Reporter, "Safety Catch" by Brooks Bolick, October 3-9, 2000, page 18).

John Cones

Universal Ratings System
John Cones
12:05 pm thursday october 19, 2000

Disney President Robert Iger recently called for a universal ratings system for film, television, music, video games and all other forms of popular entertainment. He suggested that such a ratings system "would represent a significant step toward helping parents make informed decisions about the entertinmant their children see and hear". As you might expect, the MPAA's Jack Valenti and other entertainment industry leaders oppose the plan saying it just won't work (see The Hollywood Reporter, "The Iger Sanction", October 3-9, 2000, page 18). Iger is right, however, the needs of parents and their children should come before corporate profits. But, we should actually go one step beyond Iger's suggestion. Not only should we adopt a universal rating system, this universal ratings system should be implemented by a non-industry, non-governmental, but private ratings organization, with representatives from the industry, goverment, parents groups and so forth. We simply need to make certain that such a ratings organization is not dominated by the industry and that it puts the needs of parents first and the interests of children first. The government ought to consider the long history of Hollywood's self-serving manipulation of government and recognize that self-policing by the entertainment industry is what doesn't work (see that history as set forth in the book "Movies, Politics and the Role of Government).

John Cones

Stars: A Waste of Money?
James Jaeger
3:39 am tuesday october 24, 2000

An awful lot of features are making money without stars in them.

Hollywood executives are therefore re-thinking their fixed ideas: Maybe all that money paid for name talent doesn't mean much of a hoot to this crop of 33 million BabyBoom Echos . . . . Just silly things like a good story and engaging characters mean something . . . maybe even some good special fx.

Way to go younger generation. . . you are no mOrons. And don't let any World Trade Orgs give you any crap either :-)

James Jaeger

Writers Sue Discriminating Hollywood
James Jaeger
4:11 am tuesday october 24, 2000

Seems like Hollywood is getting spanked for at least one form of its multi-faceted discriminatory practices.

To Wit:

"Twenty-eight older TV writers, claiming that youth-obsessed Hollywood has blacklisted them because of their age, filed a $200 million federal civil rights lawsuit Monday against the major television networks, talent agencies and entertainment companies.

"The lawsuit claims that Hollywood has, since the 1980s, discriminated against people over the age of 40, to the extent that older writers are typically unable to find work, often driven to financial ruin and even mental collapse.

"Representatives for the major television networks could not be reached for comment. . .

"Among those listed as defendants in the complaint are entertainment giants Fox Entertainment Group, Time Warner, Viacom, DreamWorks, Universal Television, a division of Universal Studios, and Walt Disney Company which owns the ABC-TV network."

Complete Article at:,2770,12484 _10_17_1,00.html

To get a handle on all the other ways Hollywood discriminates, read a book, called WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN HOLLYWOOD!, the complete text of which is at .

James Jaeger

Are Violent Movies Like Cancerous Cigarettes?

The Lowest Form of Human Life
John Cones
11:51 am friday november 3, 2000

A new posting (an essay on Hollywood in the "Background Information" section of the FIRM site, entitled: "The Lowest Form of Human Life") explores the relationship between the long- standing discrimination occurring in Hollywood, images portrayed through this powerful communications medium and prejudice and discrimination in our multi-cultural society.

John Cones

The Solution is Simple: GET THE PEOPLE
Julie H. Osmande
1:36 am monday november 20, 2000

From Jesus to Ghandi, bearers of wisdom, who have come with humility, have always been despised and crucified. Now, we come with humility and ask all of you to consider boycotting what we believe to be the greatest social disease of our time: Hollywood.

So far, we're having a profound impact. Donations to charities are going up and box office attendance is going down. This is good for society. Instead of spending $15.00 at the movies, how about donating the money instead to:

  1. American Cancer Society;
  2. American Red Cross;
  3. Lukemia Society of America;
  4. Multiple Sclerosis Society;
  5. National Foundation for the Blind;
  6. Salvation Army;
  7. Breast Cancer Research;
  8. Parents Council Against Violence;
  9. M.A.D.D.;
  10. Alcohoics Anonymous.
Until we get at the very root of the problem (BOX OFFICE MONEY), Hollywood will never change. We must tell all our friends and family to cut down on the amount of time spent at the theaters. TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND PLEASE PASS THE WORD ON IN ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Finally, Mr. Cones, to me is a hero who will one day be given the highest honor for humanity. HE'S HELPING EVERYONE HERE AND EVERYONE IS TOO BLIND TO SEE IT!


It's time for action
Grant Allen
2:30 pm wednesday november 22, 2000


I watched TV with interest last night while the Congressional Senate was debating with movie and executives, criticizing them for advertising R-rated movies to children. Senators threatened to take government action if the industry does not clean its act up. Of interest, government threats have happened 4 other times in my lifetime in America (about once every 10 to 15 years) - and of interest, nothing happened. And you get the feeling that nothing will happen this time around. The debate is one side criticizing Hollywood for producing and promoting R and PG-13 movies to kids while Hollywood blames the parents for not doing their jobs. It is a debate that won't have a winner - because they are on the wrong issue.

In the Senate Hearings, a funny statistic sneaked into the dialog that nobody picked up on - APPROXIMATELY 30 G-RATED FILMS WERE PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED THIS YEAR OUT OF A TOTAL OF 435 MAINSTREAM MOVIES.

The right answer in the debate will come from a variety of solutions - and I can assure you that jumping all over the film industry to clean up its act is not one of them. In this modern day society, government is not going to convince families to cut their incomes in half by demanding one parent stay home to raise their children. Eighty percent of all working families have two-parent wage earners and there is a huge percentage (and growing) of single family parents. Neither group is going to give in on this debate. Yet families have become increasingly concerned about violence and sex in movies.

One of the best solutions (without government legislation or criticizing Hollywood) is to INCREASE THE MIX OF FILMS BEING PRODUCED - increase the number of good G and PG-rated films produced and distributed annually. GIVE CHILDREN AND ADULTS MORE SELECTION. When it is raining cats and dogs with R and PG-13 films it is hard to talk about draining the swamp. It is virtually impossible for a parent to deal with the problem. Children really have no alternative for entertainment when 75% of all films are R or PG-13-rated. By increasing the number of G and PG-rated films, children and adults can have "choice" - something that is sorely missing right now.

That is what G Films, Inc. is all about - but we can't seriously execute our plan on a national level without investment capital. It takes investment capital to bring G Films Inc. to the national investment community and become a serious solution to the national debate.

Our $2.2 million seed capital round gets our website up and starts a national advertising, public relations and promotion campaign to bring G Films to the national investment community as a major solution and investment opportunity. There is a golden opportunity to get huge national coverage for what we are doing right now as the congressional and industry debate goes on.

People want to talk about this issue and debate it - passions are raging - but let's stop talking about it and put our money where our mouths are - invest in a solution! G Films gives you, and a variety of investors all over the world, the opportunity to put their money where their hearts are - and ironically have a serious opportunity to make money doing it.

G Films, Inc. has the concept and experienced executives to build in essence an "Index Fund" of G and PG-rated films by spreading the risk over a wide range of films and production sources. Using the internet ( the Company can promote and broaden its efforts to build a significant new motion picture brand name. The result will be more G and PG-rated films produced and distributed each year. And industry statistics have proven that G and PG-rated films are far more profitable than R and PG-13 films. There are serious profits to make taking the high road.

But without seed capital financing - this concept will not move forward. NOW IS THE TIME TO CAPITALIZE THIS COMPANY - NOW IS THE TIME TO MOVE! No more watching the debate - let's participate in the debate by taking the only action that will work at a time when interest is at its highest.

G Films, Inc. "Building the next great movie brand".

Grant Allan
G Films, Inc.
September 28, 2000


By Andy Seiter

WASHINGTON - Hollywood executives, under tense questioning from a Senate committee, said publicly Wednesday for the first time that they targeted R-rated movie marketing to children.

But while appearing to varying degrees contrite, some of the eight studio executives flatly refused to stop certain practices denounced in a Federal Trade Commission report.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others on the Commerce Committee extracted promises from several studios to stop promoting R-rated films on TV shows, in publications and on Web sites that are aimed at children. That goes further than the 12 guidelines revealed Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America in which all the major studios pledged to take considerably smaller steps. But Democratic and Republican leaders alike were unimpressed.

"To put it as bluntly as I can, they have not done enough", said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

Lynne Cheney, wife of GOP vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney, criticized both the industry and the Democratic ticket saying that Vice President Gore and Lieberman attack the studios on one hand but cozy up to them at fundraisers "with a wink and a nudge."

McCain, who called on studio executives to meet after they failed to show at a hearing on Sept. 13, praised the Walt Disney Co., DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers for responding to the report more responsibly than others. President Clinton ordered the report last year after killings at Columbine High School in Colorado.

Other studios, however, argued that some marketing of R-rated material to children in appropriate.

Stacey Snider, chairman of Universal Pictures, defended the studio's decision to market such R-rated films as Erin Brockovich and Boyz N the Hood to teenagers . . .

Hollywood Reporter's Editor
John Cones
12:59 pm friday november 24, 2000

In the November 2000 70th Annversary Issue of the Hollywood Reporter, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher seems to provide some comments (page 1)that tend to agree with the positions of FIRM as posted from time to time here at the FIRM site. For example, Hollywood Reporter Publisher Robert J. Dowling points out that "Writers often create from within their own experience . . . " Of course, this observation is true. I can't imagine anyone doubting it. It is also very similar to the FIRM position that "movies, to a large extent, tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers." Both statments ultimately mean that it is extremely important for all of us, that the group of writers and other filmmakers whose films are chosen to be produced and released be diverse and create films that communicate diverse ideas. Dowling continues by saying that " . . . the business is about creation -- about society, life, humanity and relationships . . ." Once again, if the views of writers and other filmmakers are being reflected in their movies and these movies are about society, life, humanity and relationships, it is important that these movies reflect diverse points of views about such important subjects. Finally, Dowling points out that "No other body has the potential to influence people as does Hollywood, and whether because of envy or fear, it seems better to attack it than understand it." What we at FIRM have been saying for some time now is that all movies communicate ideas and that ideas have always and will always influence human behavior (i.e., the motion picture is a powerful medium for the communication of ideas). We are happy to see that Mr. Dowling agrees with us on that point. It's the second part of his statement that runs astray. It does not require either "envy or fear" to recognize that a powerful communication medium in a democracy must be accessible to all on an equal and fair basis. Let Robert J. Dowling consider that question. Does he really believe that all segments of our multi-cultural society have the same equal and fair opportunity to determine what ideas are communicated through Hollywood movies? Surely not.

John Cones

you all are domb
valentine espinosa
2:37 pm tuesday november 28, 2000

you guys didn't help me at all on my reaserch so now i had to do another topic. IDIOTS

re: you all are domb
James Jaeger
4:38 pm tuesday november 29, 2000

And you are talking about what?

James Jaeger

arolf Hitler
3:32 pm wednesday november 29, 2000

I know who you are and what you did. Hey, arent you the one that ecaped my death camp? that = death


YOur friend, Arolf...

P.s. deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath

5:28 pm wednesday november 29, 2000

In any given year, only 10% of Hollywood production companies actual produce films; 90% produce nothing. With 2,000 film companies vying for 600 properties, why do they produce only 200 films a year? Incredibly, they waste 65% of what they buy! Of the 200 films that do make it to the screen, most of them are unsuccessful. Why? Because the current crop of studio executives are incompetent! They simply do not know what to buy. To date, worldwide, Hollywood is running aprox. 4 billion dollars behind last year, even though they raised ticket prices. With new accounting rules in effect, it's fast becoming crystal clear how truly incompetent the current studio execs really are.

re: Incompetence
5:44 pm wednesday november 29, 2000

P.S. With hundreds of digital cable, satellite and internet channels available to them, audiences worldwide are clamoring for more entertainment. If Hollywood is to survive in the new millennium, they must produce far more than 200 films a year.

Who's Side is Pitofsky On?
John Cones
12:26 pm thursday november 30, 2000

In a recent appearance before a Congressional committee FTC chairnam Robert Pitofsky stated that "The entertaiment industry probably could not be prosecuted for marketing violent movies, music and video games to children under existing laws." (The Hollywood Reporter, Nov. 28 - Dec 4, 2000, page 66). He spent much of his remaining time detailing the legal difficulties to such prosecution. On the other hand, he admitted that the "FTC is empowered to take action against companies for advertising that is either deceptive or unfair to consumers . . . " but he called for industry self-enforcement instead. The history of entertainment industry self-enforcement is a dismal failure (see that history as laid out in "Movies, Politics and the Role of Government"). Let's stop calling for ineffective self- enforcement and get someone in the position of FTC Chairman who will vigorously enforce existing law or aggressively seek new laws to protect children and the American public from the greed of Hollywood entertainment moguls who will almost do anything to make a buck regardless of its negative impact on our society.

John Cones

Valenti Response Old News
John Cones
3:38 pm tuesday december 5, 2000

In a recent response by the MPAA's Jack Valenti to an earlier letter from Senator Joe Lieberman regarding the FTC findings that entertainment companies routinely and aggressively market ostensibly adult products to children, Valenti returns to his old worn-out and misleading rhetoric that according to the MPAA's own self-serving survey, 81% of the nation's parents are satisfied with the ratings system. What Valenti always fails to disclose is that the MPAA survey is designed to elicit a response favorable to the current ratings system and it specifically fails to ask parents the most important question "Would you like to have more information regarding the contents of movies offered for viewing by your children?"

John Cones

re: It's time for action
James Jaeger
4:19 pm friday december 8, 2000

I applaud you Grant for trying to start G Films, Inc., and take the high road, but my experience with the right-wing conservatives is that most of them like to complain about how bad the "liberal" movie industry is and how it's adversely effecting our children yap, yap, yap . . . but fact is, FEW of them ever put their money where their mouths are. I for one feel this is a disgrace and such conservative (investors) should either SHUT THEIR MOUTHS ABOUT HOLLYWOOD or finance alternatives, such as you propose.

The Hollywood-based U.S. film industry is quite aware of this phenomenon and I'm sure it makes for never-ending laughs at industry cocktail parties.


Warning: This Movie May Be Hazardous
James Jaeger
5:42 pm friday december 15, 2000

As of this date, there may be as much evidence to prove that a saturated diet of violence-oriented movies creates harm to young moviegoers as there was evidence which proved that a saturated diet of nicotine-saturated cigarettes created harm to young smokers. Therefore, the movie business (i.e., the top executives that excessively green-light violence-oriented shows along with the name-talent gross profit participants and, most of all, the studio's boards of directors), are, and should be, subject to liability claims. If someone feels to the contrary or that this is a violation of freedom of speech. . . then I say, fine, I hear you. . . and maybe you are right . . . but let's let it all be sorted out in the courts just to be safe. After all, our kids' welfare is at stake, so one can't be too safe. And if the movie industry gets exonerated and the studies all get invalidated. . . fine, but if a judgement against the MPAA companies (who distribute most of the influence) occurs. . . like it did for the tobacco companies . . . then so be it - let some of those executives, name talents and corporate directors be forced to sell their second or third multi-million dollar homes and let's see the proceeds go to some filmmakers that don't have to have a gun in every picture or to some rehab centers or maybe even to a kitty for the colonization of Mars. So the statement "The entertainment industry probably could not be prosecuted for marketing violent movies, music and video games to children under existing laws" may NOT be true.

James Jaeger

Cancerous Films
1:52 am monday december 18, 2000

In regards to the last comment posted, comparing movie violence to cigarettes, I need to point something out. America banned violence/sex/etc. for years, [HUAC] and now films are getting violent once again. Now, I'm not saying that you should ban it completely; that wasn't a great idea. After the ban was lifted, we have violence all over again. I don't think ratings really help. But won't kids just watch TV if they don't get the violence they want in films?

It Is So Gratifying To Have People Who Fight
Gladiator For Cones
4:09 am monday december 18, 2000

It is so gratifying to have rebels who are finally aware of the problem with the Hollywood industry.

What is so scary is how little we know of the effects of Hollywood movies. Remember this even further scary point: I truly believe the psychologists, the news reporters, the government officials, and the 5 conglomerates (Disney, Viacom, Universal, Fox, and Time/Warner) are all supporting each other somehow. IT'S TRULY AND PROFOUNDLY SCARY.

Remember this as well: Our founding forefathers started the American Revolution because of British oppression. And what was British oppression? King George was taxing the Colonists at today's rate of 30%! And this triggered the Boston Tea Party? What history books leave out is King George NEVER interfered with the religious liberties of the Colonists; King George NEVER imposed his 'cultural British sensibilities' on the Colonists; and King George NEVER attempted to 'shut-out' the Colonists from banking, media, legal, and government institutions.

The British Oppression was, in fact, far less than the oppression all Americans feel today from Wall Street, the Media, Hollywood, the Court systems, and the hospitals.

And finally, here's the scariest part: 5 COMPANIES (Disney, Viacom, Universal/Vivendi, Fox, and Time/Warner) control 92% of all content in America, this includes all movies, television, media outlets, and book publishing. And these 5 companies are controlled respectively by Michael Eisner, Murray Rothstein (Summner Redstone is his alias), Edgar Bronfman, Rupert Murdoch, and Gerald Levin, who are all of Jewish descent.

What does this mean? Well, looking at Hollywood, as many of you have already stated less formally, in 1999, 450 movies were released. NOT ONE OF THESE MOVIES HAD A CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC PROTAGONIST.

And Wall Street? You don't even want to know the statistics. But take your heads out of the sands, people. The future of our way of life is at stake, if already forever gone. The movie screen has supplanted the church and Mr. Jon Stewart, Mr. Larry King, Mr. Bill Maher, Mr. Ted Kopple, Mr. Jerry Springer, Mr. Howard Stern, Mr. Maury Povich, Ms. Ricky Lake, Ms. Sally Raphael, and Mr. Peter Jennings, all of whom are of Jewish descent, have already started making vicious attacks against Mr. George Bush, which anyone would deem anti-Christian, if such a term existed. Unfortunately, even this term 'anti-Christian' is being erased until the only thing left is 'anti-Semitic'. THIS IS THE PLAN, folks. It's calculated, smart, and methodical.

To all of my good friends, take courage and don't be afraid to fight back. Thank you!

re: It Is So Gratifying To Have People W
John Cones
4:06 pm tuesday december 19, 2000

It's interesting to see people post information at this site that is either blatantly erroneous or somewhat suspicious. In the case of this recent post, someone has claimed that Rupert Murdoch is of Jewish descent, but provides no authoritative source for such information. I've never run across any suggestion that Mr. Murdoch has a Jewish background, thus I question the validity of the observation. When I attempted to question the writer of the post about that information, the E-mail address provided was "". My inquiry was returned as undeliverable. This suggests to me that someone is intentionally trying to post misleading information on this site for the purpose of discrediting the site, trying to make the site appear to be something it isn't and/or trying to stimulate a false discussion based on erroneous information. These are some of the difficulties you encounter when trying to expose the truth.

John Cones

re: Cancerous Films
James Jaeger
2:45 pm tuesday january 2, 2001 It doesn't seem that young children seek out violence. What I mean by this is this: I have observed a 5 year older and 2.5 year older watching Saturday morning cartoons for several years and I watch them too. . . so I know what they are about: the usual agressive violent stuff that is being created by today's Hollywood. The kids hardly EVER laughed while watching them.

Then I went out and purchased a 3-hour VHS cassette of all the old cartoons I used to watch as a kid. . . you know, POPPIE, BETTY BOOP, ETC., and the same kids have been watching them over and over. What's is more, they laugh at them. . . and I mean REALLY laugh. Less serious.

So here we have a basic physiognomy of the movie industry yesterday and today. Everything's so black-leather serious today.

James Jaeger

re: It Is So Gratifying To Have People W
James Jaeger
4:34 pm tuesday january 2, 2001

It is so gratifying to have rebels who are finally aware of the problem with the Hollywood industry.

Many people have been aware for quite some time and there have been a number of studies, John Cones' study is one of, if not the most, specific of the lot. But thanks for the kudos.

What is so scary is how little we know of the effects of Hollywood movies. Remember this even further scary point: I truly believe the psychologists, the news reporters, the government officials, and the 5 conglomerates (Disney, Viacom, Universal, Fox, and Time/Warner) are all supporting each other somehow. IT'S TRULY AND PROFOUNDLY SCARY.

Obviously the (Presidential) candidates have to spend millions of dollars on TV spots to get elected and these dollars go to the MPAA companies (a few of which you have named) in no small way, but the MPAA companies also support each other in various ways. I might suggest you read three books that will give you excellent examples how they do this, all available at


Remember this as well: Our founding forefathers started the American Revolution because of British oppression. And what was British oppression? King George was taxing the Colonists at today's rate of 30%! And this triggered the Boston Tea Party? What history books leave out is King George NEVER interfered with the religious liberties of the Colonists; King George NEVER imposed his 'cultural British sensibilities' on the Colonists; and King George NEVER attempted to 'shut-out' the Colonists from banking, media, legal, and government institutions. The British Oppression was, in fact, far less than the oppression all Americans feel today from Wall Street, the Media, Hollywood, the Court systems, and the hospitals.

Possibly true, but if you re-read the actually text of the Declaration of Independence, you will notice that the Colonists were charging that Old George was doing some very troublesome things.

The major thing that is happening today is the fact that the Federal Reserve System is violating the Constitution by creating fiat money. The FED is the 4th central bank this country has had, three of which have already been abolished each time when the citizens re-awoke to the hidden tax of inflation. Read the Creature From Jekyll Island for the details.

And finally, here's the scariest part: 5 COMPANIES (Disney, Viacom, Universal/Vivendi, Fox, and Time/Warner) control 92% of all content in America, this includes all movies, television, media outlets, and book publishing. And these 5 companies are controlled respectively by Michael Eisner, Murray Rothstein (Summner Redstone is his alias), Edgar Bronfman, Rupert Murdoch, and Gerald Levin, who are all of Jewish descent.

As John Cones says, be careful who you label as Jewish unless you have your facts straight. Eisner, Bronfman, Levin ARE Jewish however I don't think Murdoch is (please post here with your source if you discover he is or isn't and/or if he has changed his name).

There is no doubt about it: Hollywood IS making movies that discredit Christianity (and a host of other people/things). The reasons why should be a no-brainer. . .

And Wall Street? You don't even want to know the statistics. But take your heads out of the sands, people. The future of our way of life is at stake, if already forever gone. The movie screen has supplanted the church and Mr. Jon Stewart, Mr. Larry King, Mr. Bill Maher, Mr. Ted Kopple, Mr. Jerry Springer, Mr. Howard Stern, Mr. Maury Povich, Ms. Ricky Lake, Ms. Sally Raphael, and Mr. Peter Jennings, all of whom are of Jewish descent, have already started making vicious attacks against Mr. George Bush, which anyone would deem anti-Christian, if such a term existed.

Hey, just because they make attacks against George Bush does not mean they are anti-Christian. And again, please provide your sources for the above as far as how you know these people are Jewish. I believe Bill Maher once said on his show that he is only half Jewish, having one Jewish parent. Also, Bill, who I admire, is a Libertarian because he does not want to have anything to do with the Republicrats (and to paraphrase what he says: 'the people who finance the Democrats are only a little less scary than the people who finance the Republicans').

Unfortunately, even this term 'anti-Christian' is being erased until the only thing left is 'anti-Semitic'. THIS IS THE PLAN, folks. It's calculated, smart, and methodical.

Yes Hollywood is run by LIBERAL, NOT VERY RELIGIOUS, WHITE, JEWISH MALES OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE as John Cones says in his books and yes, in my opinion, Hollywood's propaganda machine is doing a make-over for America which includes splintering the Christian community and attempting to legitimize homosexuality. They will never succeed however as Christianity has too much momentum (after 2000 years) and by far most of the people in the United States ARE Christians -- hence this makes it a *Christian Nation* until and unless some other religious group holds the majority of the votes.

Since Christianity used to be a subset of Judaism and now it is not, it is understandable that some Jews are still pissed off at Christians, just like some of the Catholics are at the Protestants and as the Scientologists are at the "Squirrels" who follow David Mayo. So what's new. . . except the idea that they should all get over it.

James Jaeger

The AOL-TimeWarner Creature
James Jaeger
10:30 pm sunday january 14, 2001

The merger of AOL and Time Warner is the most ridiculous business move that has ever come down the turnpike. This company is so big, so complex and with so many conflicts of interest and potential anti-trust situations, I don't think the FCC has any idea what kind of an animal they have unleashed.

The rational for THIS creature's existence seems to be that it's going after some 26 million households (like a kind of ten-ton, pregnant, jellyfish on acid). This is not exactly the paradigm of American free enterprise I think the Founding Fathers had in mind. . . but yet another example of a government-sanctioned cartel whose ass will be kissed by all those congressmen that seen to think they need another major movie conglomerate around so their election campaign dollars can be spent on TV air time (supplied by AOLTW no doubt) when the time comes to get themselves re-elected, for the Nth time. Of course the Federal Reserve Bank is another example of a government-sactioned cartel that CAUSES the boom and bust cycles in the economy -- as exemplified by this last stock market *correction*. See

And from the other view, it looks like this deal is some kind of a desperate attempt by Hollywood to somehow get into the computer/Internet, video-on-demand business.

Of course the good news for the Independents is that this pregnant jellyfish-on-acid might sting itself to death while hallucinating that it's having another power-lunch at Spagos.

James Jaeger

P.S. My brother, who has been in the (mainframe and pc) computing businesses since 1973 has this observation about AOL:

"Have a hard time believing that AOL got as big as it did with such crappy customer service back there 1994-1998. Remember they were the company that took your credit card number, signed you up but couldn't be reached by phone a month later to discontinue your service if you were dissatisfied. They also duped customers for years into believing that they were on the internet when in reality they kept customers corralled in their own proprietary domain so they could hurl advertising at you....Is there a lesson in all of this? You tell me. ,Bunker ... out."

Hollywood: DOA
James Jaeger
5:32 pm friday january 19, 2001

Hollywood is not evil. . . it's just being *Hollywood* and by this I mean, the executives found at control what movies are made and who gets to work on them. Actually I have managed to have much greater access than most over the years. However the executives, who run the studios, do endeavor to keep most everyone out unless they conform to a narrowly- defined demographic (the details of which can be found at and/or unless they are a wife, child or lover. But again. . . one must realize: Hollywood's days are numbered because its core business (distributing movies and stealing net profits from writers, producers, talent and investors) is coming to an end with the arrival of high-bandwidth digital delivery which will inevitably be coupled with direct-payment methodologies. Oh the studios will try and set up their proprietary Wide Area Networks to lure viewers and talent back into the cesspool, but so long as the Supreme Court upholds freedom of speech guarantees, there will be competing distribution networks through the Internet's FTP, World Wide Web and other layers (as well as new digital delivery systems dedicated entirely to independent films which may arise). The MPAA studios (hence Hollywood) are DOA in this new era.

The wisest thing studio executives, writers and talent can do now is concentrate on thinking outside the box of Hollywood, creating totally new and unique scripts/films and re- establishing the good will of private and public investors (and possibly venture capital firms) -- not scurrying around the hulks of 7 rotting palm trees in a watered-down desert.

James Jaeger

People are NOT Movie Corporations
James Jaeger
6:29 pm monday january 22, 2001

For the record, let me say again. . . I support doing some more research on the LONG-TERM effects of violence on society in general (not on any one individual or individuals). IF it is shown beyond reasonable doubt, that an environment of violence created in the movies and on TV contributes to Society's development in a NEGATIVE way -- this should be made known to writers and filmmakers. . . and I believe that most will be responsible and seek more original subjects and that censorship should NOT be applied as no government has the right to censor PEOPLE. On the other hand, the constant offenders, the top studio executives, name talents and boards of directors of the studio/distributors (the ones who have ripped multiple homes, and endless cash flow from civilization through movies created under their CONTROL or on THEIR WATCH) should be held responsible -- just as the tobacco company executives and boards of directors have been held accountable for the damage their out-of-control corporations have done.

Because all of the MPAA studio distributors ARE publicly held CORPORATIONS, they have a duty to the PUBLIC that EXCEEDS the duty a PRIVATE person (or company) has to the public. . . and this is one of the reasons the SEC exists. Thus these corporate ENTITIES, as distinct from PRIVATE individuals, should NOT be able to hide behind the freedom of speech clause in the Constitution IF their products and services are harming the Public. In other words: I feel there is a distinction between the rights of a Flesh & Blood PERSON and the rights of a paper & file-drawer CORPORATION. And contrary to popular belief. . . a corporation is NOT made up of PEOPLE -- only a COMPANY is made up of people. (That's why it's called a *company* -- you are working in my presence, my company, and I am working in yours.) A corporation is totally different. . . a corporation is an ARTIFICIAL ENTITY. Flesh & blood People can ONLY own the STOCK of this ENTITY (NOT its ASSETS. The corporation owns the assets). The stock ownership allows people to control and HIRE other people to control the corporation. Thus Flesh & Blood People have nothing to do with BEING the CORPORATION, only the owners who, directly or indirectly, OPERATE the corporation (just like one operates a BULLDOZER) and these people claim rights to its cash flow (and debts) as evidenced by the pieces of paper (stock) which they hold in their safe.

When these BULLDOZERS (i.e., public corporations/MPAA studios) run roughshod over Society (a.k.a. the People), it is of PUBLIC concern and is different than the individual rights of Flesh & Blood People. The Founders did not grant such rights to artificial entities . . . but to the People. After all it DOES say "We the People. . ." NOT: We the Corporations. . . does it not?

James Jaeger

What Are Some Good Aspects of the Film Industry?

James Jeager Is Gay
james jeager is gay
7:34 pm monday february 5, 2001

James jeager is gay, How many people have watched violent films and not committed murder? James Jeager is gay. I think his parents tought him how to be fucking gay. Youre gay Jeager. I just watched Braveheart...i think im gonna go dress up in 14th century clothing and chop peoples heads off!!! probly not you queer. I just watched a Jackie Chan movie...i think im gonna go get a broom stick put it between my feet and fight thousands of people at once. Cock.

Love, James Jeager is gay.

re: James Jeager Is Gay
John Cones
12:18 pm tuesday february 6, 2001

Isn't it amazing that some people interested in this debate about movies and violence get so emotional that they engage in childish name-calling. And, of course, they engage in such irresponsible behavior anonymously. The unnamed person who offered the previous posting actually misses the whole point about repeated viewings of violent movies. No one at this site has ever suggested that watching a single movie will cause someone to engage in violent acts. We have suggested, as have others, that the repeated viewing of violent movies by immature, uneducated, not-sophisticated, young men in particular, will result in some instances of copy-cat violence. There is no question about that. Our most recent correspondent has simply engaged in a form of false logic and emotional name-calling. He has tried to exaggerate our position to make it look unreasonable. But his effort was so transparent, it is easy for any intelligent individuals to see through his argument and his emotional tirade. I suggest he grow up.

John Cones

James Jaeger is Not Gay
James Jaeger
8:14 pm wednesday february 7, 2001

Number one, I take offence at you calling me gay. Even though I am not gay, your use of the word, as a sort of CUSS WORD, is not only bigoted, but offensive and unkind to the less than 1% of the general population that happens to be physiologically homosexual.

Number two, I do not condone Hollywood's attempts to imply that as much as 10% of the population is gay just because significant numbers of studio executives have BECOME gay due to the aberrated socio-sexual influences they have encountered in the Hollywood motion picture culture -- a culture that is NOT, in any way, representative of the general bell-shaped curve of most other cultures.

James Jaeger

Jack Rooney
10:25 pm saturday february 10, 2001

One should first recognize and concede the entire system is corrupt before any meaningful progress can be made regarding actor's equity within the entertainment industry. The unions, as a far-left branch of the Social Democratic Party, the handmaiden of the Communist Party, are nothing but an extension of the International Brotherhood founded by Karl Marx. As such, it has become, as the Marxist dialectic reveals of necessity it would become, an oligopic structure attempting to gradually transform the fabric and foundation of the American Republic and the economies of the world into something more and more similar to that which presently exists in Russia, the former Soviet Union, which is now run by mobsters and racketeers who control everything through their consortiums of gangster organizations (gangs).

Marxism failed due to inherent contradictions in its ideological/philosophical design and gross miscalculations at the base of its economic theory. As a political/economic system of government proposing to ultimately serve the interests of workers, communism grounded in Marxist dialectical materialism fails because it carries within it the seed of its own destruction, a fatal flaw, an inherent contradiction, a contradiction between theory and reality. In order to succeed, it must become what it attempts to overthrow.

I see no difference between an alliance of non-government organization (NGO) producers and an alliance of NGO unions banding together as a gang to control the entertainment industry and a gang of oil cartel-ists established to fix and control the price of oil. Let them fight each other under the specious precept, the lie told to the rank and file, that they are concerned for the interest of the workers. Their goals are political and their poitico-economic ideology is flawed. Their actions are misguided at the foundation.

Ultimately, like the Marxist political ideology upon which it is based, this corrupt system too carries within it the seed of its own destruction. They fight for their own self-interest as an oligopoly and for their own self preservation as a political body. The concept of "worker's rights" is chanted as nothing but a front for their greater goal of economic control and dominance of the entertainment industry and finally, all industry. Eventually, the body of exploited workers will rise up against it as an anti-thesis in opposition to the status-quo, overthrowing it, correcting it, and installing a better way through "synthesis" (the new way established through the resolution of this conflict, this contradiction) which ultimately will be more inclined to serve the interests and well- being of the artists and workers within the industry and the interests and progress of society as a whole.

Hopefully, with the help of enlightened leaders, the goals of providing universal equity to labor will be achieved through due process of law without resorting to violence or strike or underhanded and devious business practices (methods the typical unionists is so inclined to use) as examination of their past historical record shows: blackmail, intimidation, discrimination, mobsterism, threatening gestures and acts, destruction of personal property, extortion, and actions designed to intimidate and harass, including hate-speech and humiliation tactics targeted against their critics and opponents, ostracism, bashing of skulls with pick-ax handles, and outright murder have been the modus operandi of the unionist from the beginning (and in the US since about 1900 when communist Marxism began spreading into America from the European continent) They became as bad as the bad guys they were fighting. They become as corrupt as the corrupt system they initially set out to destroy. The "antithesis" or backlash in the public mind against the unions is occurring today as a direct response to these actions and events, past and present, which civilized society deems unacceptable. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the unions to ever regain the confidence and trust of the masses.

"Union first" means exactly what it says; worker's rights are being subjugated to the interests of the oligopoly as evidenced by the fact that these issues could have been settled long ago through the promotion and passage of laws designed to protect working actors from exploitation from capitalists through legitimate and civil means under the rule of law.

The Berne convention, the International Copyright Tribunal, and international copyright laws designed to protect artist rights, which favor and enforce artist's rights above those who would seek to exploit them, have all been shunned, distorted, downplayed, or ignored by the actor's unions as an effective vehicle for gaining equity for actors, since such universal laws, combined with a global method of enforcement, would give too much power to the individual artist to enjoin and restrain producers from exploiting them unfairly, and, thereby, would serve to undermine the necessity, indeed the very existence of unions.

Instead, they (the NGO producer's consortium operating as film studios and networks under the banner of AMPTP, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, and their unholy alliance with the gangs of NGO unions SAG/AFTRA/DGA/WGA, etc, etc.) would rather do business through private "contract negotiations", "Phase One agreements" and "Appendix A" (see: These pseudo-legitimized concoctions of crafty lawyers, corporate executives, and union bosses are designed primarily to artificially restrain trade and fix prices, and these contracts, these written documents, contrived by and conceded to amongst themselves, have little if any universal application or force regarding "all actors rights" but only serve the class of elitists who become a part of the gang consortium through the "signatory agreement" or "memberships" or through their standing in vast wealth and serve only members who payola to the consortiums in order to be able to do business in this very highly restrained, corrupt, and artificially controlled industry fabrication created by criminal minds.

The error working actors and workers within the industry are making today is in mistakenly conceding to the legitimacy of this corrupt, self-serving, and failed system which no longer truly serves the interest of labor.

Jack Rooney

Streaming Media. . . Good For Indys
Jack Rooney
10:45 pm saturday february 10, 2001


This is a brilliant post and one I am in complete agreement with. In fact, may I have your permission to re-print this?

James Jaeger

Certainly, permission granted. And keep those wonderful diatribes of yours aimed at my inbox - the best part of my day.

Your fan

Jack Rooney


The major studios are presently wrestling with streaming media technology. They are concerned about image quality; they are concerned about protecting their programs from pirates; they are concerned about audience tastes; they are concerned about money. Yes, the state of the art of streaming media leaves a bit to be desired. It is still a bit grainy at the low bands, and you need a lot of web storage space to stream at the hi bands, and the larger studios who have tried it, like, have failed. Independent filmmakers streaming media (except the pornographers perhaps) are reporting dismal sales revenues, and the advertisers are reluctant to support it because of uncertainty about the effectiveness of their advertising dollars on such sites. But there are other features of streaming media you may have overlooked.

If you look at it to make money from a pay-per-view perspective, where you charge a fee each time someone watches the show, or you try to look at it as a money-maker from a third-party advertising perspective, where advertisers pay the bill and the website owner rakes in the dough from ad sales, you may have a hard time at it. But this is by no means the only ways revenue is generated from streaming media.

One must also look at the long-run revenues gained by the artist through the exposure the film artist receives from the raised public awareness the net brings to artists who show their work on the net, and not merely the short-term, immediate cash sales they might glean from such showings.

Independent film artists, for the first time ever, now have a medium available to them to showcase their work, although right now at a degraded quality for sure or limited in high quality to the small percentage of hi band subscribers. But before the development of streaming media and the net, because of the distribution monopoly maintained by the major studios and entertainment producers, our work was relegated to the small theatre art houses and obscure video tape sellers. Today, we can at least show our art to the world and let the people decide what they like. The long-term financial gain to the artist comes in the form of exposure of their work to the world, which can result in advancing the artist's career and opening doors to markets for the work. These markets were formerly closed to most independent filmmakers.

If you are concerned about image quality, consider this: even streaming at 56K standard modem speed, the quality is no less than a slightly snowy television picture with the antenna a bit out of alignment. Many areas of the world receive television reception today of much lesser quality than a standard low band streaming image. Today, the range of your audience is every nation on earth.

Those of us who are concerned with the art form of filmmaking and the rights of the artist to be seen and heard see the net as an opportunity for showcasing. As the image quality is improved, look for the large, well established, well funded corporate conglomerate television stations, motion picture studios, and cable and satellite broadcasters to start receiving a good healthy run for their money from independent filmmakers.

Our financial gain will come in time, as the public becomes more aware of their options. We will no longer be at the mercy of the major studios and distributors who have maintained a monopoly over the distribution of entertainment programming and films for decades. Soon, the people will be able to decide who and what they wish to see, rather than have it shoved down their throats by a bunch of corporate bean counters in Hollywood or New York City. Let the studio executives try to put a meter on their corporate web sites and collect nickels at the door, we will stream our work for free and sell tapes, DVDs, and direct Hi-definition downloads at the site if someone wants to buy. When given the choice between viewing a free, tastefully done art film and a one-time pay per view studio production, many will go for the show which is admission free. If the site becomes popular, as I believe only the strong will survive here, and the good, talented artists will become popular and prevail in the marketplace, they can sell ad space on the site or place commercial ads in the broadcast as the market will bear.

The fact of the matter is, independent filmmakers of legitimate cinema, and not pornographers, were the first to embrace this new technology, test it, apply it, work out the bugs, and now the studios want to copy the business models developed by the independents. The big studios fear this technology, and mostly, they are concerned about the empowerment of the independent film artist by this new medium, and they are scrambling to find ways to protect their dominant market share from dwindling away in a sea of independent filmmakers streaming high-quality broadband broadcasts over the internet within the next few years. It is coming soon to a computer monitor near you.

Jack Rooney Rooney

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |