I’ve often discussed with Ted Hope the idea of reinstating the 1948 Paramount Decree, which was repealed in 2020. That framework could potentially address the situation you’re describing by imposing a new set of rules on major streaming platforms. Let’s not forget that the original decree specifically targeted the concentration of power among studios that owned their own movie theaters—an arrangement that clearly violated the Sherman Act. So couldn’t we argue that today’s platforms might also be vulnerable to legal challenge, given that their vertically integrated model closely mirrors that earlier system?
Even as a French filmmaker, I can see how the dominance of a single system of financing and distribution undermines the diversity of film production. Our system—highly complex—relies heavily on television funding, which has led to an industry that produces more “upcoming content” than actual cinema. It’s fascinating to see how the streaming platforms are amplifying this effect, both economically and aesthetically. Everything starts to look the same—even festival films, which now feel like the cinematic equivalent of haute couture: a refined version of commercial cinema, but cut from the same cloth.
Your formula solves the independent film and television program distribution problem. In the process, you also solved the indie production financing problem.
It is widely known that there is a large market for better films and TV programs. Unfortunately, the Hollywood establishment that has long controlled distribution is deeply disliked by outside investors for many reasons.
Talented entrepreneurs have figured out how to produce and promote quality films and programs; however, securing production financing from outside investors has always been difficult. This is because indie project profit projections have been limited due to the high distribution costs charged by the establishment players.
I urge every independent film and television program producer to utilize Roy's formula.
I have been looking into a different approach, with a similar goal.
A collaborative, decentralized creative writing project that aims to actively bring people together to create stories.
Where you create a character, and enter a world where every interaction with another character requires you talk to that characters writer. The idea being that everyone motivates and lifts everyone else.
That being said, I genuinely like your take on decentralising the infrastructure too.
They’re building infrastructure for how content moves (it is an interesting project for sure) We’re building a world for how stories live.
Story Protocol is about licensing, attribution, and monetisation - important work for a modular, AI-driven content economy. But our focus is different.
This world isn’t made of assets. It’s made of presence. Every character is real. Every moment is negotiated. Nothing exists unless someone is there to write it.
If they’re solving distribution, we’re exploring inhabitation.
The creative engine here isn’t code - it’s trust, memory, voice. And people.
It’s a decentralized content delivery network. So the idea is that instead of using AWS and Akamai (or similar) where there are people in the world who could just shut you down if they decide they don’t like you, that wouldn’t happen in a decentralized system.
There’s one critical component missing here, and it’s the real driver behind this entire strategy: what’s the plan for managing the skyrocketing demand for energy-hungry data storage and ultra-efficient data processing?
Because let’s be honest—our insatiable appetite for energy is on track to burn the world down.
I’ve often discussed with Ted Hope the idea of reinstating the 1948 Paramount Decree, which was repealed in 2020. That framework could potentially address the situation you’re describing by imposing a new set of rules on major streaming platforms. Let’s not forget that the original decree specifically targeted the concentration of power among studios that owned their own movie theaters—an arrangement that clearly violated the Sherman Act. So couldn’t we argue that today’s platforms might also be vulnerable to legal challenge, given that their vertically integrated model closely mirrors that earlier system?
Even as a French filmmaker, I can see how the dominance of a single system of financing and distribution undermines the diversity of film production. Our system—highly complex—relies heavily on television funding, which has led to an industry that produces more “upcoming content” than actual cinema. It’s fascinating to see how the streaming platforms are amplifying this effect, both economically and aesthetically. Everything starts to look the same—even festival films, which now feel like the cinematic equivalent of haute couture: a refined version of commercial cinema, but cut from the same cloth.
So true about the festival films!
You could literally build this right now. Probably take a day to get it online lol
You could definitely build it now. It would take a little bit of money on the front end to get the whole thing rolling from a content point of view.
I agree Roy. It would take a year to build .
10m for an MVP
Roy, this article is amazing.
Your formula solves the independent film and television program distribution problem. In the process, you also solved the indie production financing problem.
It is widely known that there is a large market for better films and TV programs. Unfortunately, the Hollywood establishment that has long controlled distribution is deeply disliked by outside investors for many reasons.
Talented entrepreneurs have figured out how to produce and promote quality films and programs; however, securing production financing from outside investors has always been difficult. This is because indie project profit projections have been limited due to the high distribution costs charged by the establishment players.
I urge every independent film and television program producer to utilize Roy's formula.
I have been looking into a different approach, with a similar goal.
A collaborative, decentralized creative writing project that aims to actively bring people together to create stories.
Where you create a character, and enter a world where every interaction with another character requires you talk to that characters writer. The idea being that everyone motivates and lifts everyone else.
That being said, I genuinely like your take on decentralising the infrastructure too.
A16Z’s Story Protocol is pursuing that space.
They’re building infrastructure for how content moves (it is an interesting project for sure) We’re building a world for how stories live.
Story Protocol is about licensing, attribution, and monetisation - important work for a modular, AI-driven content economy. But our focus is different.
This world isn’t made of assets. It’s made of presence. Every character is real. Every moment is negotiated. Nothing exists unless someone is there to write it.
If they’re solving distribution, we’re exploring inhabitation.
The creative engine here isn’t code - it’s trust, memory, voice. And people.
Dropout is doing a version of this quite well
Can you elaborate on the Livepeer component?
It’s a decentralized content delivery network. So the idea is that instead of using AWS and Akamai (or similar) where there are people in the world who could just shut you down if they decide they don’t like you, that wouldn’t happen in a decentralized system.
There’s one critical component missing here, and it’s the real driver behind this entire strategy: what’s the plan for managing the skyrocketing demand for energy-hungry data storage and ultra-efficient data processing?
Because let’s be honest—our insatiable appetite for energy is on track to burn the world down.