netribution.co.uk Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the netribution.co.uk

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host netribution.co.uk. Currently, hosted in United States and its service provider is New Dream Network LLC .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

home news contests finance scripts production sales tv festivals copyrights internet cross media film industry interviews writer filmmaker actor animator documaker producer reviews special edition blogs essays videos carnal cinema guides studio 2.0 diaries festival diaries obituary forum featured writers crowdfunding’s lack of sophistication around risk: is staged-finance the answer? written by nic wistreich on 15 march 2016 . posted in articles “staged financing must become the film business’s immediate goal.” – ted hope, producer & head of production, amazon studios, september 2013 crowdfunding’s lack of sophistication around risk much, if not most, of investment strategy is about dealing with risk. a backer of a project – be that an equity or debt investor who is hoping to see some kind of profit, or a crowdfunding supporter who wants to get their perks and see the finished film – has to predict risk. normally, the closer a project goes from idea to release – from pitch to screen – the lower that risk gets; it's reducing all the time. to reflect this, in the majority of business investments, the first ‘angel' investors will normally put in the least and get the most equity, and as subsequent funding rounds continue, new investors put in greater amounts and get less relative share, but more value as the business is now worth more. as risk decreases, the cost of participation increases, just as there are far more ideas that get turned into scripts than scripts that get made into movies, or movies that get a theatrical release. but crowdfunding, not technically an investment, is flat and treats all types of backer the same. at the start backers have to decide if a project looks viable and convincing, pay their money and hope for the best. it’s an investment of faith and confidence when 75% of all crowdfunded projects arrive late and a quarter over six months late (according to a july 2013 study ). some end up cancelled (examples here or here ), which damages the whole space as they will doubtless put some people off backing a crowdfunding project again. the problem is arguably even more of a challenge with flexible crowdfunding where projects can miss their target and end up raising far less than they need but still cash in. on indiegogo, 80% of projects raise less than a quarter of their target, meaning often there isn't the money to deliver the project or to do it to the standard promised. this is a problem both for the creative, on whose shoulder the stress and reputation rests, and the backer, whose money is at stake. meanwhile, the crowdfunding space depends on people having a good experience, backing a project and doing it again. yet the money is almost never all needed at the very start. for a lot of creative projects, some money is needed to pay some wages and overheads over the many months or years it will take on an ongoing basis – so it could trickle in. indeed, the bigger costs might be towards the end during post-production or when 1,000 dvds & dcps are needed or the soundtrack has to be cleared. by that time the risk is considerably lower – if a book is ready to print or a film fit to screen, there's less risk about delivery, while it’s easier to assess the quality at that stage. rolling with it is there space for a rolling or staged crowdfunding that dripfeeds money into the project throughout its creation much as development, production, completion & marketing finance are already separated? it seems to resonate with how ted hope has been arguing the indie film world needs to adopt staged investor financing to get more people investing in film. it would support the kind of structure where, say, of 1,000 scripts or ideas that got funding, 200 might be supported to to do pre-production & shoot a promo, 100 get shot, 50 get full post-production and packaging for delivery and 10 get extra marketing and distribution support. investors at each stage would be taking a smaller risk and would be putting in larger sums of money – while the backer who’d taken a risk and made a good choice at the initial idea stage could stand to make a bigger share of any profits. read more: crowdfunding’s lack of sophistication around risk: is staged-finance the answer? add new comment print film's monopoly problem written by nic wistreich on 27 january 2016 . posted in articles not before time, the new year started with some promising news about selling films online. for the first time, the annual decline in dvd and blu-ray sales in the us has been outstripped by the growth in digital sales, rentals and subscriptions. home entertainment rose 0.7% in 2013 ( pdf source ). $6.5bn – over a third of total consumer spending – came from digital rental, retail and subscriptions, with download-to-own rising a hefty 48% on 2012. the figures don’t even include subscriptions bundled with other services (like a cable company’s deal with netflix) or advertising-supported vod like hulu or youtube. of course, a chunk of this growth has been for television and traditional film, and the biggest beneficiaries continue to be the studios and large rights owners. for independents – as scott harris detailed in his frank description of the struggles self-distributing being ginger – digital distribution is typically a lot of work for limited gains. why is this? indeed, why – unlike many other industries online – does the small, agile film producer not have a bigger advantage online over the studio giants? if film behaved like publishing, software development or countless other industries, then being a small, low-overhead, low-budget independent outfit would offer a significant upside over being a major film studio. standard network effects online have consistently empowered the garage-based agile and innovative players, who not only compete with, but out-sell ‘legacy’ businesses in their industry. read more: film's monopoly problem add new comment print understanding drm: back to the days of edison & the motion picture patent company written by nic wistreich on 11 december 2015 . posted in articles the monopoly that created the independents that created the studios imagine having to pay a license fee every time you filmed something or screened your work. at the start of the 20th century, the motion picture patent company (mppc) in america controlled patents around cameras, film and projectors, and demanded fees for anyone screening or filming anything . the mppc were able to dictate what could get filmed and screened, telling a young alfred zukor who had just bought the rights to a big french success: “the time is not ripe for features, if it ever will be” (as described in timothy wu ’s excellent master switch ). zukor, who would later head paramount, became an early rebel who refused to play along, as was carl laemmle who declared himself ‘an independent’ – the first to use that name. laemmle wasn’t independent for long, his company universal became one of the biggest studios on the planet, as did those from other ‘rebels’ and ‘independents’ willhelm fuchs (20th century fox) and the warner brothers jack, sam and henry. when laemmle started to make ‘independent films’ without paying a licence, he was sued 289 times in a three-year period by the edison trust, and eventually fled new york to the west coast with fuchs, zukor, the warners and others, further from the mppc ‘spies’ and lawyers, and closer to the mexican border if a quick escape was needed. read more: understanding drm: back to the days of edison & the motion picture patent company add new comment print lessons from tv: pirates compete on 'quality, price, and availability' written by nic wistreich on 04 december 2015 . posted in essays perhaps no sector has been more involved in shifting the debate around video piracy than the tv industry. it perhaps began in late 2006, nine months after steve jobs had sold pixar to disney, joined their board and become more involved in their operations. disney co-ch

URL analysis for netribution.co.uk

https://www.netribution.co.uk/people/animator
https://www.netribution.co.uk/?start=76
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/finance/2146-exeter-phoenix-digital-short-film-commissions#comments
https://www.netribution.co.uk/?start=1425
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/production
https://www.netribution.co.uk/blogs/2213-film-s-monopoly-problem?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/312-latest/2196-site-back-upgraded?tmpl=component&print=1
https://www.netribution.co.uk/reviews/69-feature-film/2195-why-selma-s-not-a-challenging-race-biopic-it-s-much-more#addcomments
https://www.netribution.co.uk/reviews/2189-lff-review-captain-phillips?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default
https://www.netribution.co.uk/people/documaker/1765-the-yes-men-fix-the-world-we-ask-them-why-bother
https://www.netribution.co.uk/blogs/2223-9-11-hip-hop-remembering-the-day-15-years-on
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/festivals/2141-the-56th-bfi-london-film-festival-opens-tonight-with-frankenweenie
https://www.netribution.co.uk/blogs/diaries/2191-don-t-make-us-feel-small-remind-us-to-be-larger?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/scripts/2145-co-op-youth-film-academy-searches-for-scripts-from-budding-young-film-writers
https://www.netribution.co.uk/stories/181-screenings/2184-creative-colleges-co-op-collaborate-on-slate-of-features#addcomments
exeterphoenix.org.uk
bbc.co.uk
cineworld.co.uk
therochdalepioneers.co.uk
theshiznit.co.uk
bfi.org.uk
twoshortnights.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain name:
netribution.co.uk

Data validation:
Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 12-Oct-2014

Registrar:
Total Web Solutions Ltd t/a Total Registrations [Tag = TOTALREG]
URL: http://www.totalregistrations.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 01-Nov-1999
Expiry date: 01-Nov-2020
Last updated: 03-Jan-2018

Registration status:
Registered until expiry date.

Name servers:
ns1.dreamhost.com
ns2.dreamhost.com
ns3.dreamhost.com

WHOIS lookup made at 03:50:30 22-Oct-2018

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2018.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at https://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REFERRER http://www.nominet.org.uk

  REGISTRAR Nominet UK

SERVERS

  SERVER co.uk.whois-servers.net

  ARGS netribution.co.uk

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

SPONSOR
Total Web Solutions Ltd t/a Total Registrations [Tag = TOTALREG]
URL: http://www.totalregistrations.com
Relevant dates:

  CREATED 01-Nov-1999

  CHANGED 03-Jan-2018

STATUS
Registered until expiry date.

NSERVER

  NS1.DREAMHOST.COM 64.90.62.230

  NS2.DREAMHOST.COM 208.97.182.10

  NS3.DREAMHOST.COM 66.33.205.230

  NAME netribution.co.uk

DISCLAIMER
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:
Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2018.
You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at https://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REGISTERED no

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .