Slashdot Mirror
Movie Industry Cries All the Way to the Bank
shandrew writes: "Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, has reported that the year 2001 was the "greatest box office year in film history" with movie admissions reaching their highest level since 1959. Isn't this the same industry that is complaining that piracy is putting them out of business?"
It does seem pretty surprising. They stil try and push through these stupid laws & bills to prevent piracy, yet here is another example that the market is booming.
I can't exactly lay my hands on figures, but I know the same is true of the music industry - not necesessarily their best year or anything like that, but I know that they are definately not hurting from lack of revenue.
Now maybe they can cut some of the cinema prices? I couldnt help but notice that the prices keep ticking up, whilst the adverts get longer and longer..
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Movie tickets sales != VHS/DVD sales.
Fucking Einsteins here...
Hey, lets not forget that the RIAA was bitching the same bitch and making the same kind of profits a year ago, and now. Now things couldn't be bleaker, many people are predicting the demise of the recording industry entirely.
A year ago napster was in full swing.
Also, one thing you'll notice is that the MPAA isn't making exactly the same claims that the RIAA was. And honstly movie piracy isn't such a big deal. The quality isn't as good, and the download times are insaine. Back in the modem days it used to take me just about 20 minutes or so to d/l an mp3. But snagging a 1gig divx of a new feature film off the campus lan can take an hour, and it can take days to get off filesharing services like morphius.
Movie trading just hasn't caught on the way napster has.
What the MPAA is saying is that movie piracy is going to hurt them in the future and it's also keeping them from jumping on the digital TV, movie thing (thats why we need the SSSCA!).
You'll also note that these are box-office results, not home video rentals or DVD sales. Piracy wouldn't have any affect on that anymore then music piracy would affect concert sales.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If you work harder and earn more than the common man, you should be brought to justice.
The wealthiest people in the world are hardly the most hard-working. Look at the cast of the TV show Friends: They will be paid one million dollars per episode to film a 1/2 hour TV show. How does that compare to some guy that's doing construction work for 8 hours every day? Think of the pity that the average coal miner would feel for the hard-working cast of Friends.
People like Jack Valenti aren't hard-working. They're just greedy.
Listen to me: Valenti and his hord consider that DVD Region-ing is a way to prevent a film to be seen in a place in which it has not previously been played in theater.
they could schedule some 2-year period (hard-coded on the DVD, if they want) during which the DVD would only be playable in a given place, but after this period, it could be played worldwide with *no* limitations...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The goal of the media giants has nothing to do with piracy really. They want the infrastructure for pay-per-view/play, which will make their profits skyrocket beyond comprehension. Watch that movie again? Pay again. Play that song twice? Pay twice.
Piracy is a good excuse. If they can use the 'piracy threat' to force DRM technology to be adapted, it opens the way for a pay-per-view model.
These arguments are getting old, but here we go...
Copying, as bad as it might be, is *not* stealing, try to get that into your minds!
When you steal something from someone, they don't have the original object anymore, you do. The poor guy from who the thing was stolen is lacking his object.
When you copy something, the guy still has got his stuff left, but you also have a *copy* of the the object. You didn't steal anything from anyone.
Now some people will start yelling: "But you stole the Programmers/Moviemakers/Artists paycheck, they don't get the money they deserve...". True. But it isn't theft. Theft would be if you broke into that artists house and stole the money he has already made from previous artistic work. Now it's not theft, but copyright infringement. Theft sounds worse and is worse, imho. The people affected will very much notice when someone steals the stuff they already have, but not as much when someone copy one of their works.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
Can DVD sales suffer from internet piracy? Possibly. Can box-office sales? Nope. Pirating a movie in the theaters cannot hold a candle to going and seeing the movie. Frankly, if somebody is going to download the pirated movie, then the chances are they aren't going to pay to see it. It is too big of a hassle.
DVD sales can be seriously hurt by P2P sharing. The MPAA has a few things they can do to prevent that, though. Loading DVD's up with features is one idea. The DVD still has value if the movie's getting downloaded, but the extras aren't. (Or am I in the minority of DVD purchasers because I care more about the bonus footage and making of scenes...?)
Another good approach would be to get a handle on why people download the movies. Are they just curious if the movie is any good? Well here's an idea, the MPAA should release an edited version of the movie, free to watch on the net. Maybe insert some ads into it or something to get some money per view. Edit out the language, and maybe cut out a few scenes. This way, somebody can watch the movie to see if it's interesting to them. Then they can go buy the DVD if it's interesting to them, or move on if it's not. If they can get ad revenue that way, then it's not wasted time for the MPAA.
Hopefully the MPAA will look at why people download movies and try to provide a profitable alternative to them, instead of trying to sue them out of existence. It works better for both sides if they take a more mature attitude about it.
"Derp de derp."
The loss of potential profits is a serious problem,
DAMMIT DAMMIT I have lost my lottery ticket, I have lost 1 MILLION EUROS!!!
..wait..
What do you mean with "you should check first if it was the winning one"?
(Potential is exactly that, potential. What next? Suing your employer because he didn't fire you, depriving you of the possibilility of getting a better job?)
The summary reads:
Isn't this the same industry that is complaining that piracy is putting them out of business?
I don't think so. I don't think the movie industry is claiming that piracy is putting them out of business, or even causing great harm at the moment. I think that their argument is that emerging broadband and internet technologies could soon put them out of business, if effective legislation and anti-piracy measures are not enacted.
The primary difference between the recording industry and the movie industry is that the recording people are complaining about what's happening right now, whereas the movie people are acting to prevent a "Napster for Movies" from being possible three years from now.
A pox on both their houses, of course. But I think it's wrong to suggest the movie industry is complaining about piracy ruining their profits today. It's all about what they fear will happen in the near future.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
So the more sweat and muscle the work requires the more you should be paid, right?
No, but if you're making millions of dollars a year, then you should not be crying to Congress because a few working people have copied your DVDs to share with friends.
1. not all movies are block busters that people watch more than once and buy the dvd/vhs.
2. nitch movies like foriegn or art films may not make as much money in theaters. Most big theaters no longer play art films, unless they are produced and directed by famous people.
3. pirated version of "so-so" movies will have a harder time breaking even. Why spend 10+ bucks for a movie with no production value, which barely keeps you interested?
4. pirated version of popular or great movies tend to see a benefit.
5. pirating may affect movie budgets negatively and force movie makers to do more with less money.
6. pirating of movies before they are released to the public may kill any chance of it making money, let alone profit. Crap movies will be affected the most by this.
7. Pirating DVD disk image may become a bigger issue in the future, but for the most part it's professional pirating by organized criminals that are the biggest problem.
Just my opinion, but I think the movie execs just don't understand it and realize they need to change how they do things. In a lot of ways, art and foriegn films could see an increase in popularity if video on demand becomes reality. Someone might not spend 7.00 for a ticket, 3.00 for popcorn, 2.00 for a drink and 20 minutes to drive to the theater for an art film, but they might spend 3 bucks to see it at home. There are a lot of ways for the movie industry to re-invent itself and make more money. Now if only they would "think" instead of react, they could really see a whole new world of cinema.
I like watching short movies on the net, when they are good. I wouldn't spend 7 bucks on a questionable movie, but I would risk 1-2 bucks. As more people master the art of making short movies, the market will grow. Especially if hollywood continues to crank out formulaic junk.
Hmmm, let me see if I understand this now:
Rampant movie piracy in Asia means that we have to have region encoded DVD's and electronic devices that won't copy anything without going "mother may I" to the RIAA and MPAA?
Have you seen some of these pirated movies? Someone walks into a theater with a freakin' cam corder and films the film. Or, they borrow the actual film from a friend who works there and they do the transfer that way. How do ANY of the proposed DRM (Digital Rights Minimization) tools going to prevent that?
The single biggest complaint that most of us have is that there is no logic to support the laws that the industry is asking for. The last time the MPAA went this crazy against a technology it was the Video Recorder. Fortunatly, they picked on Sony and ran up against a company that was willing and able to fight. This lead to the fair-use laws and one of the largest ancillary markets for the movie industry ever. You think they'd learn from the past and look for the money making angle.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Funny thing, now that the popularity of napster has waned CD sales have gone down. Dont get me wrong, I know there's still plenty of music sharing going on out there, but I remember when DJ's at radio stations were developing massive libraries of music off of napster. Now that napster is by the wayside and music sales are dropping the industry still blames piracy for waning sales although, when music sharing was up and popular sales were high, now that sharing is dying sales are going down. It is odd how a scapegoat remains a scapegoat long after he's been served up with mint jelly on the side.
Though I mostly agree with you I want to add a bit of insight from a different location in the world. Here in Europe (and most of the rest of the world not being Northern America), we have to wait a couple of weeks to a couple of months, before a movie that has been released in the US, is shown here in the cinemas. If it ever shows up in the cinemas at all, because many movies, even good ones, go straight to video here or never are released at all. If you download a movie during that waiting period and watch it, you generally won't go to see it in the cinema, nor rent the DVD. So here downloading movies is hurting (in a small way) the sale of cinema tickets, though in my opinion it is mostly because the studios restrict when and if we can see a particular movie.
The big record, movie and tv-companies haven't yet caught on to the fact that the world is a village and that people want to see and hear stuff when it becomes available, not when/if a company decides they can see or hear it.
Use Adsense for Charity
I'm no big fan of piracy, however we all know it can be very useful to get pirated material of things not available or no longer available on the internet or wherever your piracy needs are filled. However, this just goes to show that there is still no positive link between the amount of pirate movies and how many people visit their local cinema. Remember a few years back (mid 80s?) when nobody was going to the cinema? They blamed the video store. Pirate movies have been around for years and years and years and years and... snip. They'll blame steps splitting up on mp3.com next
Yes. It IS an argument. Some object's price is meaningful only within given geopolitical aspect. $1200 for the tulip flower is certainly too high even for USA, but it was pretty ok(converted to gold equivalent) in Holland during 1600..1700 timeframe. $15-$20 for the DVD is (mostly) ok in USA, but hardly acceptible here in Russia. Well, just an example - Jagged Alliance 2 (one of my favourite games) originally was priced at $49 or like. Localized Russian version (localisation done by Buka, under agreement with Sir-Tech), costed about $2.50 for two disk set and about $3.50 for shrinkwrapped version. And since Buka released their version (perfectly legal) with a price competing with pirated copies (they were priced for $2) - there were no pirated JA2 versions on the market anymore. Just an example.
I couldn't agree more.
There really isn't just one Brittney Spears. There are actually many of them. When it comes to blonde teeny-pop musicians, they are a dime a dozen.
Its just that the recording industry decided to market and sell the hell out of the particular one THEY picked.
They created the demand by promoting this one. They limited the supply by controlling the industry to prevent other blonde fake-boobed teeny pop musicians from getting exposure.
And the kids fall for it every time.
on this.. I think the MPAA and the RIAA realize the full potential of the internet. If they went down without a fight, how would that look? How would that look to the public? In going down kicking and screaming, they are deterring the average joe while they can get something else in place. I think they probably are buying time right now. If they had let up, then everyone and their mother would walk all over them given the chance. While there is actually no proof, what's there to say that they aren't working on an mp3 sites where you can pay 5 bucks a month?
Isn't this the same industry that is complaining that piracy is putting them out of business?
They aren't claiming that piracy is putting them out of business, they are claiming that it has the potential to cause them more and more loss of profits with the emergence of broadband technology. Something that they have the right to be annoyed about because this happens to be America a country known for its success with the Free Enterprise system.
I'm so sick of hearing people bitch and complain because somebody charges a few bucks for a movie they spent millions to make. This isn't communism, Hollywood and everyone else that watches their movies doesn't have to support your movie habit. Just pay for the show if you want to watch it, would ya? And quit complaining that somebody is making money for his innovation. Those are all principles that this country is built on, if you don't like them, GET OUT!
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
> So how come executives of companies that are making losses still command huge salaries?
Generally there are two reasons. First, the pay for a CEO is commensurate with responsibility. Because they make decisions that guide the entire company, they get paid better, because mistakes are much more costly at this level than down on the shop floor, so companies are willing to pay quite a bit if that's what it takes to get a qualified person in the job. Second, companies don't generally keep CEOs if they feel that the CEO is the reason the company is losing money. So, in the case where a CEO stays on the job while a company racks up red ink, it's usually because (A) the company doesn't directly blame the CEO for the loss (for example, when the economy tanks), or (B) the company is buying the talent to engineer a recovery.
> Or why do civil servants get paid so well when they don't make any profit for anybody?
Civil service isn't a for-profit venture, so the "profit" isn't monetary. In public service, the goal is to maximize service levels within a budget constraint, so a civil servant who can do this well is earning the "profit" of lower costs and better (or more) service.
Virg
I'm not telling anyone here anything they don't know already, but it just makes me shake my head and sigh every time I see this: When an article is about how an industry (recording, movie) is being negatively impacted, you can bet there will *always* be a mention of piracy. You need proof? Look at the press releases and stories about the music industry for the last year and a half. 10 to 1 odds that if the article is even slightly negative, and possibly unrelated in its scope, the piracy card gets played. Not once do you see piracy mentioned here. To be honest, I'm kinda surprised its not, but I guess ol' Jack is trying to drum up sales by pointing out how much they are all loved. ;)
I get so pissed when I see stories (e.g. about a settlement of a pissed-off purchaser of a copy-protected CD with the industry) turn into a screed about the evils of the Internet and how it's screwing artists out of money. That part of their argument always pissed me off. It seems to me like they've pretty much led by example in the screwing of the artists department.
PrisonerCX
That really doesn't matter. This isn't about profit. It's about ethics. An artist or studio releases a work under certain conditions (e.g. don't copy and distribute the work, pay for each copy). The assumption is that there is a quid pro quo - in exchange for them actually releasing their work to the public (which they didn't have to do), the public agrees to abide by those conditions.
Now, it's entirely possible that some musician will release his/her music without requiring any fee (see mp3.com). That's their decision, and their right. But many artists don't do that. If you respect the artist enough to want to listen to their work, you should respect the artist enough to live with whatever conditions they impose on its distribution (which doesn't mean you shouldn't try to persuade them that there's a better way).
I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp around here. I mean, the entire community has a collective cow when someone violates the GPL. But no one seems to care when musicians have their release terms violated, or when movie studios have the same problem. It doesn't matter how much money they're making. The simple fact is that you wouldn't have the music or movie to rip off if it wasn't for the musician or studio or whatever. If you don't respect that fact they will eventually stop producing.
I'd love to see freely downloadable music. Or movies for that matter. But I'm not going to take the music or movies without permission. The same way I wouldn't use GPLed code without releasing my software under the GPL.