Technology can neither be good, nor be bad, not even neutral
This is a similar kind of situation of Hollywood’s reaction against the Torrent Tracker servers, to impede illegal sharing of copyrighted movies.
Technology for sharing is not a problem. AFAIK, i have not seen any reactionary effort to torrent technology itself. On the other hand, it is a legal attach on the phenomenon of “illegal sharing”, which was always present in Ciinemas.
Torrenting has remarkably provided a new way of sharing stuff - pretty much in a easier and p2p fashion with less effort and inertial to participate in sharing. Thus the same can be handled by the current Cinema/Movie industry to embrace such technology and underpin with their financial flow.
Personally i see it as a transition problem, that erupts very often at places where social mass is more concentrated - and people do fly around to download movies via torrent, which is economic and the technology never even tries to control the copying - which is what people wanted. We do share stuff when we like it and would usually recommend it to others to enjoy it. That is the crux of sharing. And torrent makes it easy.
Those who do not understand that, usually target Torrent tech. & policies surrounding it.
The current industrial infrastructure seems to not adapt and embrace the technological facilities that ICT is allowing them, because the 50+ year old infrastructure have stabilized its financial architecture, so that the people who manages, funds it, invests in it, do see it as a formal way to create art and credit artists, while taking their share from the turn over. All these years it has strengthened its marketing strategies for a non-internet aware society.
With a sudden (yeah ! sudden for the infrastructure), and quick embrace by the black markets(always they look for alternatives), have made them go hay wire and block their critical thinking towards how to use such technology for their advantage. Being said that, there is also much less adaption of crowd funding strategies, micropayment services even with the advancement of online payment, push of digital economy from the finan. insti. by the movie industry. On the whole, the movie industry repulses, to adapt, change and advance. Why ?
I personally think, that humans being the operators of the infrastructure, they might not want this disruption ever happen, as it necessarily distributes the financial flow, and addresses transparency & accountability, from the makers of the film. When such information is available, we expect proper distribution of wealth towards all workers(technicians, lightsmen, organizers, managers,… behind the screen stuff) in making of the film - according to some standard. This makes the system adapt towards a kind of socially auditable system, which eventually breaks the central control and financial flow.
Furthermore, the payment(ticket costs) from the customers, would now be not based on the “Theatrical facility”, but based on the real quality of the film(story + acting behavior + art + screenplay + … so on). Atleast for the internet viewers.
Still the way to regulate the “copy & share” mechanism is still debatable through technological means - in a way that does not hinders the liberty to share (may be time based expiry of copyright i.e., the file must expire its copyright mechanism & allow sharing when it reaches the UTC day/time & expected marginal turn over claimed during the pledge during crowd funding)…
The main problem here is not that the people share stuff, but it is the subjugation that they experience from the industry and law, that allows perpetuation in copyright that pushes them to purchase the film with copyrights with a different financial scale, and distribution control. Who decides that the work in art to have a perpetuated gravitated copyright. This is the usual draconian thing which i do not want you to bore with.
To end with, movie industry has to recognize that sharing encapsulates the best way to propagate about the movie, and social networks do that already for them. They now need not care about the special marketing nuances and cliches, if the movie is really a work of art rather than a conventional money in money out mechanism.
One more thing i have to mention, is that one can notice that there is not much incentive who decide to do documentary films on social, economical, wild life issues in this country. Why do you think so, if the industry is so booming with surplus business potential, why is this partiality. Is it not ethical to support them publicly or privately ? I think crowdfunding and torrenting are the ones that supports those movie makers.
Personal touch : C1, C2, C3, … C n-1, Cn … all sucks - it reeks with police state propaganda… it is shitty.