Besieged Movie Industry Suffers Record Takings

If they don't stop making shit movies they won't. by garcia · 2004-07-06 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The third Harry Potter film topped the North American box office for the month by a wide margin, taking $217.2m (118m).

I have said before that if they stop making movies that suck that people will go and see them. While Harry Potter III didn't exactly make me jump up and down it was certainly better than the critically acclaimed "Gigli" or the various other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD.

I have recently seen Harry Potter 3, F 9/11, and Dodgeball in the theatres on their release weekend. I have rented over 10 DVDs in the same time period because decent movies have been released that deserved my money.

I downloaded Gigli because the MPAA needed to suck wind on that one for daring to put in the theatres and wasting both MY money and the theatre's money.

We wonder why they overcharge? It's because they have to make up for all the bullshit movies they show that suck and no one goes to. Perhaps they should try and make blockbuster months EVERY month instead of just June (6/2003 was their previous single month record according to the article). Put two good movies out every month of every year and you'll make a shitload. Put four good movies out every year and you'll suck wind for the rest.

What happened? by haystor · 2004-07-06 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Less suckage.
More money.

--
t

Oh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:18 · Score: 0, Insightful

Oh, they must be in so much pain.

I'm really curious... by Scottarius · 2004-07-06 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

...where they get these "statistics" from. I mean do they know for a fact how many movies were downloaded? And do they know for a fact that for every movie downloaded means they lost money for that? I'm sure some people download movies they wouldn't have spent money on anyway.

I downloaded The Return of the King before it came out on DVD. But I also saw the movie in the theater opening day and three other times after that, plus bought the DVD the day it came out, plus I will buy the Extended Edition DVD the day it comes out as well. But I bet their statistics say they lost money from me downloading it when in fact they have gotten more money from me than the average-joe movie goer who doesn't even know how to click a mouse.

It's just a bunch of bullshit to make the uninformed brainwashed public that laughs at every idiotic joke in their movies believe this is all worse than it really is. The MPAA just needs to jump on the boat like the RIAA finally did and offer a good service for a decent price over the internet. Ever since Rhapsody came out I've stopped downloading mp3's and haven't even listened to the 10 gigs of them sitting on my hard drive.

But I guess leeching more money from hard working individuals is a better alternative than actually finding a solution to the problem.

Re:For those that didn't read the article by PugMajere · 2004-07-06 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, apparently rampant movie downloading helps theater ticket sales.

Good to know.

Following their usual logic... by GillBates0 · 2004-07-06 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

based on the sample space of 1 month, we can infer that "illegal downloads" by pirrates are actually increasing their profit margin.

I suggest *AA start paying pirates for downloads for the excellent job they're doing.

Arrr

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

But what's the possible amount? by Sean80 · 2004-07-06 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think it's fair to judge the MPAA based on what they took in. Say, what if they should've earned $10 billion, but only took in $1 billion. Would that be fair? I don't really think so.

No matter how much they make, no matter how bad people think the movies are, it still doesn't give one the right to steal another's intellectual property. Yes, it's all been said before, and yes, the MPAA must accept that illegal activity is part and parcel of running a business, but they're more than welcome to do whatever they need to to enforce the laws of the land. Got a problem with the law? Think movies should be free if they score less than 30% on RottenTomaotes.com? Well, bug your local representative.

At the end of the day, I think the posting is flamebait. Judge this industry by how much they lose, and the actions they take to reduce that loss, not by how much they make.

Re:But what's the possible amount? by dillon_rinker · 2004-07-06 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

No matter how badly badly unlawful copying hurts their proficts, it doesn't give them the right to bribe Congress into unconstitutional extensions of copyright. They aren't interested in enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they are willing to diminish the rule of law (passing unconstitutional laws) and increase contempt for the law (passing laws the majority WILL disobey)long as it increases their profits.

Yes, copying contrary to the law is wrong. Somehow, I can't get too worked up about it.
Re:But what's the possible amount? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

A potential terrorist is not an actual terrorist but is still counted as such.

Welcome to 1984.
Re:But what's the possible amount? by dthree · 2004-07-06 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Insightful? You gotta be kidding me. The problem isn't that WE have a problem with the law, its that THEY bitch and moan that they are losing money and therefore need draconian copyright restriction expansions. The posting is flamebait? Not when the MPAA are big fat liars.

I will judge the industry by how much it makes, because they can't cry poverty if the revenues just keep goin up!

--
"I forgot my mantra."
Re:But what's the possible amount? by Raindance · 2004-07-06 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

The point is not that we're just "judg[ing] the MPAA based on what they took in."

The point is that we're judging what the MPAA has showcased as the fundamental argument against filesharing- that filesharing cripples it's ability to do business.

This is evidence that this central argument and all the rhetoric that surrounds it is *false*. The MPAA has a right to conduct business, but not to whine to moviegoers (through their pre-movie advertisements from the 'working stiffs') and lawgoers over something that *isn't happening*, just to change (some would say, not without reason, pervert) the laws governing copyright and enforcement.

Sure, there might be reasons that said changes make sense. But if the biggest reason showcased for making these changes is *false* perhaps we should hold off making them (and look at repealing what's been done so far).

RD
Re:But what's the possible amount? by belmolis · 2004-07-06 09:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's true that the fact that the movie industry is immensely profitable doesn't justify improper copying and downloading, but for me at least that isn't the point. The point is that the MPAA and RIAA and their ilk are asking for extraordinary measures on the grounds that without them their industries are in trouble. They want to eliminate fair use, eliminate time-shifting, outlaw technology could be used to infringe their copyrights, and make it impossible for anyone outside of a small number of companies to create software and hardware. They also want to bypass important legal procedures and protections of privacy, such as the need to get a court to issue a subpoena.

These are extraordinary demands, which should be met, if at all, only for a very good reason. The argument that they make is that without these measures they will be unable to stay in business or at least unable to produce the same quality and quantity of material. The fact that they are actually making money hand over fist shows that this argument is false. Even if they are losing a lot of sales due to illegal copying, the industry isn't in danger and there is no justification for meeting their demands. They're crying wolf.

The privileges given to an industry always have to belanced against the public good. Consider the parallel case of old-fashioned printed books. Publishers no doubt lose sales because people can obtain books from libraries and read them there or borrow them. In spite of this, we wouldn't, I hope, give in to a demand by the publishing industry that libraries be outlawed so that they can maximize their profits. The public good of having libraries outweighs the desire of publishers to be more profitable. Now, if it were the case that publishers couldn't stay in business without some additional revenue, we might change our position. We might, for example, agree to a system that paid publishers each time a library patron checked out a book or even (here's a use for RFID, I guess) every time a patrol used a book in the library. But in the absence of an economic crisis for the publishing industry we probably wouldn't do this. Our attitude is that publishers make a reasonable amount of money the way things are and that it is just tough that libraries cut into their potential income.

So what the profits for the movie industry tell me is that nothing needs to be changed. They're welcome to enforce their copyrights by existing means. If they can track which Academy members leak films and go after them, fine by me. But since they're making a reasonable profit, there's no reason to give in to their extraordinary demands. It ain't broke, so we don't need to fix it.
Re:But what's the possible amount? by Cecil · 2004-07-06 09:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you dont work in finished goods (ie, somthing that you can hold or touch) then why are you getting paid? By your own value system you dont produce anything.

Many people, perhaps even most people, actually make a living performing services. Perhaps you should consider that what you're doing should be a service, not a product.

Intellectual property used to be a very very tiny segment of the economy, comprised mostly of authors. Even musicians used to provide a service, not a product.

Nowadays, there's intellectual property. So no longer do you have to perform services, you just have to perform the service once, record it, and voila! Free money forever! It comes as no surprise to me that this oppressive legal concept is starting to chafe on consumers and the economy.

It's not sustainable. There was a world for you before intellectual property, and there will be a world for you afterwards.

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:But what's the possible amount? by iabervon · 2004-07-06 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Movies are free if you don't see them. If a movie is bad enough that I wouldn't pay to see it, I'd walk out even if it were free. Actually, having paid to see a movie, I'd be more likely to waste a couple of hours on it, just in case it got better.

The accounting for the movie business, like any other IP-based business, is hard to make any sense of, because it doesn't cost the movie company anything for someone to see the movie. Pricing is based not on per-unit cost, but on what people are willing to pay. Notice that you pay a fixed rate in the theater per person to see a movie once, a fixed rate to rent it and show it to as many people as will fit in your living room as many times as you want for two days, and a fixed rate to buy it and show it to many people many times as long as you keep it; clearly, there's no fixed price for a person seeing a movie. So there's no answer to how much they should have made.

There really aren't any answers to the economics of producing content. The only things we can judge the movie industry on are the actions they take, the amount we enjoy movies, and the amount we spend on them.

It also helped... by mdvlspwn99 · 2004-07-06 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

that Spider-Man 2 opened on June 30.

--
If reality was like Slashdot, most people would be (-1) Redundant.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Maradine · 2004-07-06 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

Sometimes they swing and miss.

--

trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between

DVDs by bigman2003 · 2004-07-06 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The big story in the media last week, was that DVDs actually supply over 50% of the movie industry income.

The average american home purchase ~15 DVDs per year.

That's huge- and it is ON TOP of record-setting box office receipts. They make a lot of money from them.

But somehow, they still manage to claim that they are bleeding money out the ass.

I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.

--
No reason to lie.

Re:DVDs by drinkypoo · 2004-07-06 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

The beauty of a DVD is that it's almost pure profit. They've already paid to make the movie. Packaging and distribution is probably $2/dvd or less. Authoring and composition can't possibly cost much either.
Studios would still make a handsome profit selling DVDs for $10 instead of $25, but people keep buying them at $25, so they keep selling them at that price...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:DVDs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 22:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you state something, you can be expected to provide proof. It's not up to someone else to prove that your facts are wrong, because then you could just make something up and dominate the debate. Example: 'bigman2003 had sex with a sheep.'

I await your proof that this is wrong.

but it could have been 2 billion by Revek · 2004-07-06 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hey there will never be enough profit for most people. As the profits go up the need for higher profits will push them to make more and more claims against their customers. I haven't been to see a movie at a movie theater in 10 years. I wait for it to come out in the retail market and pay more than If I had just bought a ticket. I have it to watch anytime I like Which is usually once or twice. I have looked at camcorder rips of recent movies and all I can say is that I will wait until its out as a DVD. After all its new to me when it does I just run a few months behind everybody else.

Mod article synopsis up! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

(+1, Deliciously Sarcastic)

not an excuse by TheAdventurer · 2004-07-06 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I should point out that a healthy industry is not an excuse for stealing intellectual property. Cop: "You're under arrest for stealing TV's from Sears!" Crook: "What? But Sears posted a 13% profit increase in the 3rd quarter! They can afford this!" That doesn't work.

Re:not an excuse by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 09:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

What's worse is when you steal a TV and put it on a dolly, and then Sears starts anti-dolly legislation. Then, someone is writing a paper on how to cart TVs, and then Sears stops it with legal threats. Then, they start distributing fake dollys that break when you try to use them. Mass threatning cease and desist to dolly users? Do I need to continue?

No you don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

They sit around their boardroom trying to create recycled star vehicles with no soul because they think it will bring them safe revenue, rather than try to make something original.

Re:No you don't understand. by MindStalker · 2004-07-06 08:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

But whats truly sad, is that it works.
Re:No you don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other words, they look at movies that people like (e.g. ones that made money), and then try to make more like them. You're calling this a bad thing?

I realize that a novel idea wears off quickly, and even one with staying power only lasts so long, but an untried idea is as likely to fail as it is to succeed. They need to try new ideas to find the ones that people like, but when they find something people like, I don't desparage them trying to repeat it. A great many movies have recycled plots or themes and are still really good.

What disturbs me is when they try to recycle a good movie, and it seems like they don't understand what made it good. I can't think of a good example at the moment, but lots of sequels/followups drop the parts I like, or blow them out so they don't work anymore. Oh, well.

just like gubment..... by RegalBegal · 2004-07-06 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's scare tactics.

They want to scare people before there is actually a full on problem for them. MPAA is no better or worse than any lobbying group.

AND just like the RIAA, they won't admit to having a rotten egg if something isn't selling right. It must be downloading that got Gigli canned. Fuck them, and fuck their money system. Unless of course it's Spiderman 2.

The internet is to blame, not because of downloading. It's to blme because I can log onto Trillian and tell 20 of my friends the movie I just shelled out 9 bucks to see, sucked and they shouldn't see it.

Thier tactics aren't working.

They caught ONE kid in the theatre shooting the movie with a cam. How many kids sneak cams into movies? In just new york?! They "caught" less than a couple thousand people with HUGE caches of music shared. How many people are doing the same NOT getting caught.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The mainstream media plays us for fools, whether it's music, movies, or our own gubment. I ain't eatin' the cheese, I hate yellow.

_g

--
"It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Put two good movies out every month of every year and you'll make a shitload. Put four good movies out every year and you'll suck wind for the rest.

Good movies. Are you serious? What makes you think people want to go out and see good movies?

Re:Translation of the /. Article Summary: by jaraxle · 2004-07-06 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

This doesn't justify the illegal action of violating copyright by downloading movies.

It does discredit the movie industry's claims that they are losing more money than can be imagined due to pirates (Pirates! PIRATES! BOO! PIRATES!!!) downloading these movies. That concept is completely ridiculous, they know it, and we know it.

~jaraxle

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by sherms · 2004-07-06 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe if they gave refunds for shitty movies, they'd change their ways.

Re:I feel screwed by mopslik · 2004-07-06 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I go to the movies and I see a commercial that shows all the people that "lose" money when I pirate movies.

I hate those ads -- preaching to the choir. I mean, I'm in the theatre, with a ticket in my hand, and they're telling me to buy tickets and go to the theatre. Nice.

Plus, I get that wonderful experience of sitting through 15-20 minutes of beverage/car/cell phone commercials prior to my 3 hour movie...

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by NanoGator · 2004-07-06 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

Perhaps not, but I am guessing that they have said "ah screw it, the licensed character is all we need, write a script over the weekend."

--
"Derp de derp."

Downloading movies: Still Illegal! by Anubis333 · 2004-07-06 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

We can say whatever we want. It doesn't matter how much money they are sucking into their gullets -copyright infringement is still against the law. A lot of people ignore this 'if the industry is making a profit, that means I'm not hurting anything, which means it must be legal.' -OR- 'Sure I downloaded all the Lord of the Rings on BT, but I saw it a BILLION times in the theater!'

no.

You should fight to repeal laws you feel are unjust.
Do not just surreptitiously break them because you don't agree with them.

Kill MPAA, RIAA the right way by manabadman · 2004-07-06 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think the MPAA's profits make it right or wrong to download movies over the internet.

It would me feel better to know that the entity I am stealing from isn't going to be destroyed by my theft, but it still doesn't make it right.

I really,really hate the RIAA, MPAA, and Fraunhofer (mp3 people), but I make my stance by boycotting their products (I try my best in any case) and by telling people the things I find wrong with these organizations. And if you are going to pirate, when in public don't just point out that they have lotsa money anyway, but give your other reasons (inflated prices, price fixing, artist exploitation, etc). I really want things to change. Having illegal foundation arguments hinders, not helps.

Greets to RBK, VOD, RAC, JAH, APC, RNS, TMD et al !

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by AKAImBatman · 2004-07-06 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Believe it or not, the popularity of DVDs is probably contributing to movies improving. It used to be that they could release a stinky movie with a "catch" (e.g. Jennifer Lopez, The Hulk, etc.), and they could be guaranteed an amazing opening week. The fact that no one really wanted to see the movie again was small potatoes. The cost of improving the movie would be more expensive than it was worth.

Cue DVDs in 2004. Suddenly, the studio execs realize that 52% of their profits are now coming from people who've seen the movie, but want a permanent or "collector's" copy. Studios thus decide that they need to create really good movies so they can sell you the DVDs 3 times over. (Original, Special Edition, and Collector's Edition. Of course, I'm still waiting for the collectors edition of Nemesis with the extra hour of footage. Hello?! Are B&B listening?! Wait, what am I saying...)

BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing. They actually took a halfway decent approach to piracy with their (admittedly lame) commercials. They've actually been claiming that more blame belongs to the "cell-phone users" who IM their friends that a movie sucks.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

shameless plagarism by Psymunn · 2004-07-06 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"I should point out that a healthy industry is not an excuse for stealing intellectual property. Cop: "You're under arrest for stealing TV's from Sears!" Crook: "What? But Sears posted a 13% profit increase in the 3rd quarter! They can afford this!" That doesn't work." - Psymunn

See what i just did?!? I stole your intellectual property. I took credit for something you said. But wait.. I can't help but notice, affexed to my own post, your quote is still there, glaringly obvious for all to see...
Surely if I stole it, it must be gone. Mayhaps a diffrent crime has taken place, but theft it can not be...
I thinkt he problem people have is not that there is health of the industry, therefore I can steal but the possiblity (though this has never been proven) that P2P actually helps the movie industry. After all, thanks to me, your words got approximatly twice as much viewage (my taking credit for them however was morally bankrupt, that i must admit). Years ago people where declaring that VCRs would be the death of the movie theatre business. But, what people don't realise is, I do not have a 3 story high screen in my basment and, some movies, really are meant to be seen on a BFS (big friendly screen). I think (with music, and movies) P2P allows people to sample things a lot more and, with a bit of luck, will ultimatly mean the death of one-hit-wonders.
Granted, illegally copying copyrighted material is still illegal, but all that clamping down on this apparant scourge on society is giong to do is, hopefully, help the indie guys who aren't making much money and just want to have their stuff seen.

--
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist

Re:shameless plagarism by TrekkieGod · 2004-07-06 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

You have taken my meaning out of context and used as fuel for an invalid argument based on the semantics of the word "stealing"
Err...he used sarcasm to point out that your use of the word "stealing" is wrong. Just because two things are illegal, it doesn't mean there's no difference between two crimes. Let me see how you like it if I do it. "Look...he took money from that bank. He's loitering!" He tried to explain to you that what he did with your quote was plagiarizing it, not stealing it. You can't steal quotes, you can't steal movies (unless you rob a store and take the dvd).
Stealing something and copying a copyrighted material are two completely different crimes. Just because it's done with movies via the net instead of with books via xerox machines doesn't give you the right to give it a new term.
...to support an out of date and largely ignored point of view that getting things for free helps commerce.
Out of date and largely ignored? You don't get free samples of food at the supermarkets you shop? You don't get aol cd's giving you 1000 free hours (or however many they're giving these days. Free samples are EVERYWHERE. You must hook the customer so he can start buying your stuff. I just got a free 12-month subscription of sports illustrated. Really, this isn't a hypothetical example, I did. I would never buy sports illustrated, but it's free, and it's here at the house, so I read it. Maybe in 12 months I'll start to like it, who knows?
It would have been more productive if you had decided to infer the meaning from my post that I clearly meant to convey.
When arguing, you can do two things. You can show someone where they are wrong, and you can, (pay attention, this is important), show them a different point of view. He showed a different point of view and I think it was an effective enough argument.
But since I'm right about the situation
That's great. I'm going to claim that I'm right now, ok? Will that settle the discussion, and will you accept my side? Don't reply again saying that you're right, that's just going to cause me to have to reply once more to say that I'm right, and...damn, this is messing with my head, where will it stop???
you wouldn't really do that because disagreeing with the fact that breaking intellectual property laws is healthy for commerce would require you to be illogical and therefore irrelavent.
Now you're getting it. Sometimes the breaking of these intellectual property laws IS healthy for the commerce, you're right. Seriously though, it serves as a free sample, which causes the person to decide that the movie they thought was going to be horrible is actually worth seeing it in the theatre, where the quality doesn't freaking suck. Like others pointed out, it also helps to increase the quality of the movies in hollywood, because people stop paying for bad movies, since they know it's bad ahead of time. It keeps the pressure on for the movie industry to do some quality control on their stuff.
Perfect quality videos would be a bit worse, although not by much. There's still the "This is a great, I want to see it in the big screen" factor, as well as the whole atmosphere of a movie theatre. DVD's offer stuff that's not pirated like special features, and the nice little case. I own 220+ dvd's (it's been a while since I counted), and I'm a college student. Imagine how many I would have if I had more funds. I've also downloaded movies, but I can honestly say that not a single movie I downloaded and liked has not been bought or is not on the list of my monthly movie to buy. Heck, it hasn't even stopped me from renting, much less going to the theatre or buying.
Here's how it is. Try and argue these points:
Does piracy hurt? It depends, it can. Does piracy help? It depends, it can. Should piracy be illegal? It already is, why are you complaining? Should piracy be treated as th

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

Re:Movies are worth it... by thebra · 2004-07-06 08:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

But there's that commercial with the guy whose the stuntman and... and... he goes through all that work and you can watch his movie with just a single click

Thats the one that makes me mad. I mean I've paid for my ticket and I have to hear about how I shouldn't download movies, but I've already paid for a ticket? Do they not understand that if I'm in the theater I've paid them and that there are never promos on pirated movies? Jerks...

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by hwapper · 2004-07-06 08:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't know how much I agree with that. Sometimes the studio exec's ok a movie that's championed by an actor/actress/director that's on a hot streak. One need look no further than Battlefield Earth.

No one can deny how bad it is, I mean when they read the script and it says, "...Fade in, John Travolta walks in on stilts...." they should have laughed their collective asses off and get gotten the "not just no, hell no" stamp out.

But it was championed by Travolta so the exec's didn't stop this waste of film.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by swdunlop · 2004-07-06 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The highly groomed, preened and prepped young teen markets, of course. Oversaturated with hype from Viacom's twin dumping spouts -- Nickelodeon and MTV. Our poor kids get fed a tremendous amount of tie-in movie hype from these two, alone, let alone Disney's all-advertising, all-the-time channel.

The only youth oriented channel on US Cable that doesn't steadily pump our kids full of marketing hype is Cartoon Network, and that's probably just a matter of time.

--
Weapons of Mass Analysis

i never understood why the mpaa feared downloading by circletimessquare · 2004-07-06 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

people go to movies for the same reason people go to church: it's a community thing

no, really, it's sociological and psychological

the sea of humans around you is a major reason people go to movies, it's not just for the big screen and the great audio

movie is culture, and you partake of your culture and announce your allegiance to your culture by going to movie houses... movies are our shared cultural experiences, the thread of common experience which makes us who we are, and to be certain that everyone around you knows who the tinman in the wizard of oz is, or the shark in jaws, or who neo is and what the matrix is... this is no small thing, it is an important part of knowing who you are and what community you belong to

human beings are pack animals, and we do things in groups, for better or for worse, because we all have a need to belong, and we derive pleasure from feeling part of a group

if the mpaa is threatened by downloading, then they haven't been studying their history: the vcr didn't kill them, television didn't kill them (that was one of the reasons why the widescreen format was born in the 1950s: movies wanted to make sure their content couldn't be put on tv easily, but it was still unnecessary... televangelists didn't kill churches, and television didn't kill moviehouses)

now, the riaa is another story, as most people enjoy music in solitude

and books are another story too: wood pulp has a higher screen contrast, versatility, durability, and battery usage than any laptop could hope to achieve

so movies and books need not fear p2p

but music? p2p is going to eat the music industry alive

it's all amout the medium, how it is stored and used, and movies have nothing to fear from p2p if they truly understand their own business and its relation to american culture, to world culture, and sociology

watching a lossy version of a movie that took me 20 hours to download on my 17 inch monitor will never replace sitting in the cathedral of the modern cinema, happily munching away on popcorn in a sea of my fellow human beings around me, laughing at the same jokes, gasping at the same tragedies

it's part of the moviegoing experience you can never recreate at home

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Or alternately.. by SuperKendall · 2004-07-06 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Another case not counted is "downloaded but still bought tickets AND the DVD".

People download movies all the time and still buy the DVD or go see the movie (or both). So you can't even count all of these numbers as "potential sales lost" because some were converted into actual sales - we just don't know how much.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:So that's the rule? by MrBlackBand · 2004-07-06 08:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

...so they demonize the industry or the companies...

I think the industry is doing a great job of demonizing itself.

...potentially deprive them of revenue...

If I don't buy Van Helsing when it comes out on DVD I'm depriving them of revenue. Does that make me a criminal?

What happened to right and wrong? Following the law?

Sometimes things that are illegal are still right and things that are legal are still wrong. I hope one day you will learn this.

--
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

But your Sears analogy is WRONG by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 08:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Terrible analogy--there is a major difference between intellectual property and physical property. A TV can only be sold by Sears ONCE--they can't sell the TV repeatedly for profit. Plus, if the TV sucks you can RETURN IT FOR A FULL REFUND! A movie, on the other hand, can be sold an UNLIMITED number of times. And if you don't like it--TOO FUCKING BAD! At least at Sears you can try before you buy, which is what most people are doing when they download.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by afidel · 2004-07-06 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hmm, Butterfly Effect gets a 7.4/10.0 at imdb, not what I would call a horrible movie by any stretch. Along Came Polly garnered a 5.7/10.0, considering that imdb's audience is pretty highly squewed towards the male half of the species that's not too bad. Btw the production cost of Butterfly Effect was only $13 million its US box office reciepts were $58 million, quite a handsome profit. Along Came Polly grossed $88 million on a budget of $42 million. If you wanted to quote stinkers or flops there are plenty of examples out there but neither of the films you listed were good ones.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Pranadevil2k · 2004-07-06 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The big execs at MGM once told Kevin Smith that any movie that costs less than $2,000,000 wasn't a real movie. Now for those /.ers who aren't familiar, Kevin Smith is the creator of Clerks, and the entire New Jersey saga with Jay and Silent Bob. Clerks cost a total of $26,000 to produce... and sure it didn't do well as far as its' box office profits and all that. But this dickhead MGM producer told him to his face that it wasn't a real movie. It's that kind of idiot mentality that makes the movie (and music) industry so freakin stupid.

You are computer (math) nerds, think for once.... by yourmommastache · 2004-07-06 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

So what if they did cross the billion dollar mark. That doesn't mean they are rolling in profits.

Either a) the majority of trash talkers here are not really computer nerds working in IT but the stupid losers in high school who could only make friends with those AV club nerds and thus cannot understand simple mathematics or b) computer nerds who are losers and too willing to want to bash something (the MPAA) for stopping them from stealing movies or because they wanted to be the cool creative artist in high school but their social retardness prevented that and so now they ar still bitter and complaining.

So what if they set a record you dolts. I have to pay $12 a movie now on Friday nights. And places here charge up to $15. Movies used to cost $4 and when they raised it to $5 they were setting records. That doesnt mean they are rolling in profits. Were you rejected from Devry and U of Phoenix?

If people here actually practiced what they preached (be open to learning knew stuff) they would read less tech journals and more other industry journals (I do not work in tech, I work manufacturing, but I read about other absoultely non-manufacturing related industries to know more, hence my reading /.)

Read entertainment business journals (LA Business Journal for instance tough not only entertainment) journals and you would learn of the pay structures for movies. Studios do not keep everything. They have to split revenues (revenues not profits) with the cinema companies so that knocks 30% off first few weeks, steadily increasing (I think cinemas keep 90% of revenues after 5 weeks). Then you have to cut you partners in (dreamworks usually releases with paramount, columbia and revloution, etc etc). Then still parting out revenues, the studios need to pay out the production companies (Cruise/Wagner Productions, A Band Apart, etc etc) then they need to give out points to whatever director/producer/actor got them (Spielberg gets an extra~15 points (percentage points btw), clooney and Pitt each get 5-8 % on the Ocean's movie. Besides their salaries.

So yes, they have greater revenues. so what? the costs have gone up. Why arent all you *GENiUSES* buying AOL stock, Sony stock, Viacom stock? Because deep down you know the movies are barely profitable except for a few players!!!

And if those players make money, so what? do you work for free? why should they? it is not your right to buy their product for nothing. if they want to release a dvd of LOTR now and you buy it, whats wrong with that?? and if 6 months later they sell a different version with more goodies, why do you all complain? Cant you rent it? Couldnt you have the first time?

Arent you as pathetic as the gutless f*ck with no self control who is suing McDonalds because the food he ate there day after day (becasue he was too lazy to cook for himself and too unwilling to eat food with didn't tast as good as McDonald's)? fucking whiners all of you.

mod me down for by poor manners, poo typing and syntax skills, and poor use of colorful metaphors, but not because you disapprove of what i say.

If you don't like a movie, you steal it? by Matt+Ownby · 2004-07-06 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you like it, you pay for it, if you don't like it, you steal it?

The MPAA is accusing people of stealing their movies. We _don't_ want to prove them right. That only gives them leverage to take our freedoms away with absurd legislation like the DMCA!

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by jayaramk · 2004-07-06 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

well in India too the situation is roughly the same.The local movie industry called Bollywood is crying hoarse about how piracy is affecting their revenues and the sad part is that only 10% of the country has computer access. Morover the speed of the internet is still in the low 28-56 kbps range...broadband is just catching on. And yet the movie guys say they are losing money due to illegal downloads! Bollywood makes the most films in the world even more than hollywood but most of them sink without a trace... its for the entire industry to think what is wrong with itself! my home

--
http://students.iiit.net/~jayaram

Re:Okay, that's it -addresses by saskboy · 2004-07-06 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd recommend sending them to Michael Moore, and Mel Gibson, the reasons for the renewed interest in the movies. They burst into the other two forbidden topics: Religion, Politics, and Hollywood has Sex locked up already.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.

Unfortunate dilemna by X86Daddy · 2004-07-06 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.

I declared Kanli on the RIAA a while back, and I feel good about it. I stopped buying CDs except directly from small-time artists and used CD stores, and I try to convince others to do the same. Easy enough boycott. The one thing they want to sell is either crap, or easily obtained in a more convenient format for zero cost and zero hassle, at their detriment.

The movie / TV industry, however, is a much harder beast to fight.

They sometimes produce a quality product
They provide more than a media product; they provide an entertaining service (big screen, see it before hearing inevitable spoilers, something fun to do with friends)
DVDs are often exactly what I want... I want the deleted scenes, the cute boxed set, the sense of getting a good value

It's so much easier to boycott and declare war on the music industry... they don't offer what we want for a reasonable price. The movie and TV industries are just as evil when it comes to lobbying against the public in the copyright law arena, and screwing up the tech with DRM, region codes, etc.., but they provide something most of us are still willing to pay for.

I've rambled about the problem... I wish I had a solution. (and even if I could be convinced to stop giving them $$, most people don't have the same hatred for the above practices as I do, and won't be swayed)

anti copyright rant by reactionary · 2004-07-06 09:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

The fellow that wrote this lead-in story, nagora, has a glib attitude toward copyrights and so do several others that post here.

The fact is that there is a large industry whose primary income stream is being threatened by widespread copyright infringement. Would nagora write in the same manner if hundreds of thousands of people were stealing cars but the automobile industry was still doing record numbers (in a particular month no less! Great data point!)

To anyone out here: breaking copyright is wrong. It is certainly less damaging than theft of money or physical property but (if done en masse) it could mean the undoing of an information economy. It is against the law. There is no rationalization (I have heard them all) for doing so. You don't reward a movie by paying for it. You don't punish a movie by swiping it. You simply buy or rent movies you are interested in.

Let's get over our unfounded hatred of the RIAA and MPAA. Surely you would be protecting your business model too if it were in jeopardy. Also, let's remember that June was a good month for movies, so it's hardly a useful post in the first place. As Robert McNamara said in a good movie that I recently paid for: "Get the data!".

If you are such a nihilist as to demonize these folks then offer an alternative to the movie industry. Also, if your scruples are so loose as to agree with this poster, then ask yourself, "what if everyone did it?" before you choose your own path.

--
-- I'm embarassed to look like Hemos.

Re:anti copyright rant by Steve+B · 2004-07-06 09:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Would nagora write in the same manner if hundreds of thousands of people were stealing cars but the automobile industry was still doing record numbers
If the automobile industry were buying laws against do-it-yourself maintenance, initiating scattershot car-theft charges without traditional due process of law, and otherwise behaving in **AA-like fashion, then, he probably would, and most certainly should.

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.

Re:For those that didn't read the article by sfjoe · 2004-07-06 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

You don't understand capitalism. There is no such thing as "enough". Whatever profit you make in any given year must be bested the next year or you are a failure.

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

It's not the money, it's the number of entries by lothar97 · 2004-07-06 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

One thing that amazes me about the American box office numbers is that it is always about the amount of money, and not the number of people who viewed the movie. With inflation, increased ticket prices, matinees that end by 1pm, etc, it's the nature of the beast to have progressively better box office tallies. While "Star Wars" (including before the re-issue) had a huge take, it is smaller compared to "Titanic," although I suspect many more individuals saw Luke as opposed to Leo. Top Box Office

I know some countries like France do both (entries and box office take), which gives you a more accurate picture of how many people are seeing movies. Sure, it doesn't sound as sexy as "Biggest grossing weekend ever," but I'd give more credance to the title "Most viewed movie ever."

--

Re:It's not the money, it's the number of entries by goon+america · 2004-07-06 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

In that case, Gone with the Wind beats the pants off Star Wars, or for that matter, Titanic. Adjusted for inflation and ticket prices, it would have brought in $2.5 billion in today's money, compared to Titanic's paltry $1 billion.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by pgnas · 2004-07-06 09:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are you Kidding me?

There is absolutely No justification for stealing, regardless of the quality of the product. I am certainly not siding with the MPAA or any of their affiliates, the movie industry is just a big fat cash machine. Who didn't know that?

Is the problem with the MPAA? I don't know about that, if we(consumers) were simply not willing to pay $9 a ticket to see a movie, they would have to lower prices, however, they keep charging and we keep coming.simple econmics, and don't come back with that crap that volume(more people will come if you lower prices) speaks louder, becasue that is clearly not always the case and may not be as profitable.

What you need to do is take a look at the entire system, everyone gets a piece of the action and they demand very large pieces. Actors and Actresses command huge paychecks, agents, publicists, movie crews, designers, the list goes on..they all have to maintain that hollywood lifestyle.

There is a positive light though, if a movie costs $50 Million, you pay a mere $10 dollars to see it, that really is amazing to think that someone shelled out that kind of cash just to entertain you/us.

Either way, there is no justification for theft, furthermore, while I did not even remotely consider seeing Gigli, I am sure that there are movies out there that you would deem garbage,and I may enjoy so, lets not change the whole process just to fit your tastes? What the hell is that, I might not care for Harry Potter, I wouldn't drop a dime to see Michael Moore propoganda and dodgeball is just another cookie cutter money maker for Ben Stiller, would you put this on your "Blockbuster" List?

Watch the movies, or don't, but please stop crying about it, rent a classic, read a book, take a walk, there are other options... Hollywood will roll with the punches and continue to make huge money.

Dodgeball - good? by Ra5pu7in · 2004-07-06 09:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would not have gone to see it, BUT my kids loved it (and I am absolutely the parent of Gen-Y kids). Tastes vary considerably. I didn't care for most of the movie, though I liked the minor characters they pulled in such as William Shater and Lance Armstrong. Then again, I watch very few "comedy" movies because I find the humor too blatant and without taste. I prefer action and drama -- movies about people and things happening. I happened to enjoy Hidalgo, which I know wouldn't appeal to everyone. I thought the third Matrix movie was the best.

There is no guaranteed appeal for a movie; no precise definition of what makes a movie a blockbuster. If the execs had that, they would be putting out two a month. Whatever appeals now (making a movie a blockbuster) would quickly become so overused and cliche'd that it wouldn't take long for the formula to stop working. What makes a movie good to me is an almost magical click between the story being told, the sets, the capability of the actors, dialog that is utterly natural, and all the other components.

--
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)

Re:i never understood why the mpaa feared download by cmpalmer · 2004-07-06 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the MPAA wants to keep my butt in a theater seat, they need to employ the guys with night vision scopes and listening devices to kick out the obnoxious patrons who talk, kick seats, throw things, and talk on their cell phones during a movie that I paid $50 (family + concession stand) to see.

I used to work at a theater and we had a manager with a real knack for remembering faces. If he ever kicked you out of a movie (and he did so frequently), he would go get you out of line a month later and tell you that you still weren't welcome in his theater. Yes, he was a jerk, but he wouldn't let some punk ruin a movie for everyone.

I really like going to a theater and I love seeing movies with crowds that appreciate a film (cheering and laughing), but with the prices, I should just stay home and buy the DVD -- it's cheaper, my HDTV and surround sound are great, I don't have any guilt over stealing, etc.

Minor Spiderman 2 spoilers ahead:

I went to see Spidey 2 again last night with my wife since she was out of town when I saw it the first time. The guy behind me spent the whole movie doing the Commentary for the Mentally Disabled. Some scenes and quotes:

Peter's vision goes bad.
"He can't see without his glasses. He must be losing his powers."

Peter's vision gets better.
"He can't see with them glasses on no more."

The wedding.
"She stood him up. He ain't happy 'bout that!"

and so on...

--
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness

Laws of success distribution. by Kjella · 2004-07-06 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Success is always due to the company, preferably management. Blame is always due to someone else, preferably some external cause beyond management's control. If all else fails, blame the workers (which is less perferable since you should be, um, managing them).

Hence, any increase in sales is due to management's persistant and dilligent defense of their intellectual property rights. Any decrease is due to massive piracy, the global economy etc. Plan B, should that ever fail, would be to blame oversized costs for superstars, CGI effects etc. making them "unable" to deliver great movies.

Plan C is to retire early with a suitcases full of cash and a plane to Tahiti. Plan D, right after hell freezes over, is to admit that the management and/or business plan has been less than stellar.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by tekunokurato · 2004-07-06 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

I agree. I sat and thought a while ago and decided that if The Matrix can be made for a $63mm production budget, ANY movie ought to be able to be made for the same amount (inflation adjusted), and my friends in the biz agree. If the studios would adhere to this philosophy and challenge directors, the losses on flops would shrink drastically (think The Alamo) and the gains on blockbusters would be magnified, often to the point of an extra 100%.

The interesting hole in this theory is as follows:

Investors or execs will literally say to producers "we've got $500mm in production costs we need to use this year, so put it to use however you have to." None of the studios throw much cash back to shareholders except (sort of) the ones owned by GE; instead, they're just told to reinvest it, and execs feel they might as well throw it at making movies that much flashier rather than let it sit around.

--
Read jack phelps dot net

Does...not...compute by isomeme · 2004-07-06 09:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

literally being metaphorically syphoned

I feel like I should do a Jessica Simpson-style doubletake. "Um, is it literal...or...metaphorical?"

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.

On-demand video services also lining some pockets by zerofoo · 2004-07-06 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I rarely go to see movies in the theater; it has to be a really big event to drag us to a noisy, dirty, overpriced theater when my 56" DLP / home theater system is comfy, affordable, and less annoying than loud teenagers.

I'm sure there are many people like me, and that should be killing the MPAA, right?

Wrong - the MPAA and cable companies got their act together (unlike the RIAA) and rolled out on-demand high-def video. It's awsome! I don't mind forking over $6.00 for HD video on demand in the comfort of my home. The cable co. and the MPAA both get their cut, and everyone is happy.

Another point: DVDs aren't rediculously overpriced either, so when I want to purchase a move I don't feel like i've been butt raped.

RIAA are you listening? People WANT (that means willing to pay) on-demand services, and CHEAP hard media. You produce both of those and you will make money!

It really is that simple.

-ted

Re:i never understood why the mpaa feared download by smithmc · 2004-07-06 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

the sea of humans around you is a major reason people go to movies

Um, actually, that "sea of humans" is a big part of the reason I don't go to movies anymore. Humans are OK, I guess, but not in groups of more than 10 or so.

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!

Duty now, for the future. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-06 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't believe the MPAA is overly worried about the downloading/sharing/piracy that's going on now. It's still relatively limited to street-corner cam videos and enormous torrent downloads by the realtively tech savvy.

But they do have to take a hard stand and do what they can to quash it before the next generation of technology (superfast broadband, enormous hard drives, better TV/video integration) makes it as fast and easy to download a movie as it is to grab an mp3. If they're complacent, and say "go ahead, we make enough money", that's as bad as tacit approval-- and it will be much harder to stop when millions are doing it. Because when millions are doing it, when they get away with doing it for months and years, they start to feel that it's their right to do so. Like with music, or emulation...

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Alsee · 2004-07-06 09:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing.

You need to pay more attention to their congression testimony and other legislative antics. Everything from incessant Boston-Strangler style ranting to attempting to push through the SSSCA/CBDTPA which would outlaw ordinary computers to playing the FCC like a puppet and getting the Broadcast Flag mandated (outlawing non-crippled non-crippled TV tuners as of one year from this month). Oh, and don't forget pushing for the various state SuperDMCA laws.

Hell, that list is just off the top of my head.

Not that getting the DMCA passed and the crippled DVD player/DeCSS thing wasn't bad enough in the first place.

No, the MPAA is no better than the RIAA.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Meanwhile, back in the music industry by Hans+Lehmann · 2004-07-06 10:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The LA Times has an interesting story today about the Mexican music industry. It is in the process of being destroyed by piracy.

Please note that it's the Mexican music *Industry* that's being hurt. The music continues to be played & recorded, and people are still listening to it. The ones that are being hurt are the middle-men that try to price CDs at the equivelant of $15-$20 U.S., in a country where there average daily wage is about $4. And they wonder why their business model isn't working??

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by delphin42 · 2004-07-06 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is absolutely No justification for stealing, regardless of the quality of the product...Either way, there is no justification for theft

I agree 100%, but you cannot equate downloading a movie off of the internet with theft. Simply denying a corporation of profits that it might otherwise have earned is not theft. If it were, then any money conserving strategy could be construed as theft (ie inviting all your friends over and pay-per-viewing a movie or event, waiting for a movie to transition to the discount cinema or dvd, borrowing books from the library rather than purchasing them, taping songs off the radio instead of buying albums, drinking at home rather than paying $6 a drink at a restaurant or bar).

Are those examples all theft? If not, what is the difference between these actions and downloading a movie that makes one theft and the other not? Hint: what was stolen and who was it stolen from?

--
-- Adam

Re:Michael Moore by Colazar · 2004-07-06 10:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, he thinks that by showing people how they died, and the causes behind it, he can keep more people from being killed in the same way in the future. That certainly seems worthwhile to me. (You can disagree as to whether or not he is, in fact, being at all helpful, but not with his intent.)

And, oh yeah, he's making money from it, too. That's known as doing well by doing good, and I always considered that to be the best two-fer capitalism has to offer.

--
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson

Re:Michael Moore by bechthros · 2004-07-06 10:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

"He's cashing in. Oh, but it's okay because he makes "interesting points" and because he has "a quirky sense of humor"."

No, it's OK because he's trying to *stop* those deaths. He's trying to *end* the war in Iraq. Trying to *stop* innocent civilians from being killed in Iraq and jailed without charges or counsel in America.

Now, CNN and fox, OTOH, *they're* just cashing in. As if there's anything wrong with that.

Look, those solders and civilians are already dead. If F911 never was made - THEY'D STILL BE DEAD. Not making controversial movies never brought anybody back to life. Are historians who write books on the Civil War just "cashing in" on the deadliest war America ever fought? Is Mel Gibson just "cashing in" on the death of Jesus?

"Makes me want to vomit."

Here we get to the real meat of your post. Why didn't you just skip to this to begin with? Like the vast majority of people who are scared to see his movies, you hate MM just because he's unpopular, it's safe and socially acceptable to hate him. Just like Jim Crow, just like people were murdering Sikhs and Hispanics afater 9/11, just like "Americans" slaughtered the native people of this land to the point that their gene pool is no longer viable, the recurring and overriding message of American morality is this: if everybody else is doing it it must be OK.

And it's bullshit. Hating Michael Moore isn't going to make your world a better place.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the

Re:DVDs are a ripoff by gral · 2004-07-06 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wait for the DVD to get out of "New" state before buying the DVD. Buy from a previously viewed sale also works very good. I can usually get 3 or 4 movies for $30. Depending on the sale of course. Another good site is http://www.DeepDiscountDvds.com Have fun...

--
Scott Carr

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Fred_A · 2004-07-06 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

There might also have been a number of hints dropped by CoS along the lines of "finance this or some of your top stars might move to another studio".

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.

DVD's are a better deal any way... by 9Nails · 2004-07-06 13:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I take my family to the movies, it's $5.50 x 2, plus $6.50 x 2 = $24.00 to see one movie. (Child and Adult matinee prices locally.) Now, those movies need to be PG rated or lower, or I can't take my kids. Otherwise it will cost me slightly more to hire a baby sitter and buy dinner for them to eat. Naturally, I end up going to see a movie after the matenee times when I hire a baby sitter, so I also tend to pay another $4.00 more for my two tickets than I normally would have. Whaa!

Also, theaters only take 20% of the box office the first few weeks a movie opens. So they hike the price of consession stand items to compensate. Which, is good business, but not very friendly to patrons. Not to mention their stands take on average of 10 minutes to clear your way through. So, you better be extra early if you want to buy that tub 'o pop-corn. Which isn't fun. And I can't pause the movie when I have to pee after drinking their 32oz of pop. (Which I'm suspicious about them lacing their drinks with pee enducing chemicals just to get me to come back to see the parts I missed!) And I can't tape it with my camcorder to re-watch it. If the sound is messed up, the screen is dirty, the idiots who bring their screaming babies are in force, I can't get a pass to re-watch the movie. One ticket, one admittance... I can't even bring my own food in if I wanted to have taco's while sitting for two hours. Bummer on convience.

So, now I've got a nice 50" screen at home, a nice set of 5.1 THX Certified speakers & Amp, and a DVD player. I can watch DVD movies at night, bring my own food - which costs far less, send the kids to another room to watch their own DVD movies, and pause the movie when I have to pee. All this for $9.99 - $19.99 which is the cost of a DVD. Or, better yet, for $3.95 - the cost of renting a DVD. And I only have to wait 6 months or less to see the film. Plus I get more content on the DVD.

The way I see it, DVD's are a better deal. There isn't a good reason for me to keep paying a premium at the box office. Especially if they are going to offer me less than what I get at home.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by Planesdragon · 2004-07-06 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

If not, what is the difference between these actions and downloading a movie that makes one theft and the other not? Hint: what was stolen and who was it stolen from?

The U.S. Constititution, actually.

MPAA/RIAA are two large organizations taking advantage of a legal concept that we keep around to help the little guy.

IP isn't even an amendment--it's as basic to our government as managing money or going to war. Yes, it's a bit too bloated, and yes, it's being exploited--but if it wasn't for copyright, we'd all be sighning contracts when we buy home movies, if we could get them at all, and the quality of the movies we do see would be much worse than it is now.

P2P "piracy" isn't theft, and you're right. It's worse than that--it's an usurption of another American's constitutionally guaranteed right.

(you can feel free to rant about corporate personhood stealing from real people if you like, and I'll agree with you--but the three types of "intellectual property" are a good thing that do more benefit than harm.)

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-07-06 16:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I must admit, first of all, that I am a Buccaneer-Canadian, and that I am of Chinese (Hong Kong) descent.

Let me say, though, on the MPAA and RIAA's behalf, that piracy is honestly and truly wrong, and is going to cause the destruction of the music and movie industries (and whatever else can be downloaded, like personal and SOHO targetting apps such as games).

The only reason why the MPAA and RIAA's earnings are going up rather than down is because, in North America (where these outfits are based), piracy is still in its infancy. There are two main barriers preventing the music and movie industries from crumbling right now: the last mile distribution problem and piracy source organization.

I don't know. . . My friend is a rabid fan of Hong Kong movies. They are usually available on DVD for between $8 and $15. The pirate copies are $8-$12 dollars; they're badly ripped and unreliable, while the real ones are in the $15 range, and they work all the time. This is in Chinese malls in Canada, and the pirate copies are stacked right there on the shelves along with the real copies. Yet, somehow, the Hong Kong film industry continues to thrive.

I see piracy as a natural method for keeping prices honest. A $28 DVD is a rip off. I hope piracy 'ravages' America. It won't. In America, Walmart will never have pirate copies, nor will American video rental shops.

And movies will continue to proliferate the world. Heck, I knew a guy who's uncle made films for Disney. --He produced one of those stupid movies with an ape which plays on a sports team. Anyway, he was approached by the Mob with the proverbial suitcase full of cash and instructed to spend it very wastefully on products and film Union services which would be provided. Organized crime has been using Hollywood since day-one to launder money.

The MPAA is about greed. --That and control. --Like this idiot 'War on Terrorism' the MPAA is a line sold to the naive designed to create a political atmosphere where putting people in jail for no good reason is accepted by the public. It's largely about control.

And anyway. . . Film and television are too important a medium of cultural mind-programming to be abandoned regardless of what happens to the market.

Sadly, there will be awful movies for as long as there is an industrialized human population. --That is to say, I expect we'll see the end of Hollywood and hockey-playing monkeys in somewhat less than a decade. Here's hoping!

-FL

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by MunchMunch · 2004-07-06 16:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

"P2P "piracy" isn't theft, and you're right. It's worse than that--it's an usurption of another American's constitutionally guaranteed right."

I give up. Downloading a movie is worse than stealing? What are you smoking? Over-the-top rhetoric just hopelessly trivializes an important issue. Where in the Constitution does one find the words "intellectual property"? In fact, where in any Constitution-contemporary literature does one find any Founder advocating this idea, much less using these words?

The Constitution authorizes congress to create a temporary publishing right to encourage progress. That's what it's called the "Progress Clause," and not the "Intellectual Property Clause." If you want to argue for stronger "IP" laws, you have to do it using pragmatic arguments about progress, not some soundbiteably spurious morality based on absurdly unworkable conflations of creative ideas and property. Assuming, of course, that a moral idea of "intellectual property" was your constitutional argument-- though again, I see nothing to suggest any merit in such an interpretation.

In short: Copyright law is complex, it's counterintuitive, it is being exploited by those who it wasn't intended for, it basically sucks three ways from Tuesday for many reasons that you probably agree with me about. But the unchecked, blindly lobby-driven expansion of copyright is as great a threat to our creative culture and the purpose of copyright itself as whatever nightmarish damage you might think P2P could do, and it has nothing to do with black/white concepts like 'stealing' or whatever it is that you call 'worse than stealing.'

Re:Preaching to the choir by nagora · 2004-07-06 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you seriously think that the size of the revenues of an industry is in any way a measure of how much money is being lost through copyright infringement, then your logical abilities are clearly limited to hardware and software, and you should leave economics and finance to others.

And if you think that the number of people watching pirated films is a guide to the number of lost sales at the cinema, you need to get out more and talk to real people instead of hanging around /.

Regardless, the point was not that there is nothing wrong with pirating, it was that there simply is no crisis within the industry on a scale that justifies the huge amount of lobbying for new laws which criminalise such mundane activities as recording off the television. Much if that is based on false assumptions such as "If you watch a pirated DVD you won't pay to see the movie in the cinema" and "If you watched a cheap pirate DVD then you would have forked over your six quid to see the movie on the big screen", neither of which is based in reality.

TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won' by WNight · 2004-07-07 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree! Nothing entitles him to walk into the studio vaults and make off with the only copy of Gigli.

Um, wait, that is what you meant by stealing right? The dictionary definition of depriving the original owner of it by taking it away?

Or did you simply mean duplicating it without a license? Wow, what a heinous crime!

Copyright law was created to protect the market for the creator. Nobody else would be allowed to publish their work, without their permission. Just that. Nothing about guaranteed profits, or keeping people from seeing it, or controlling when or how someone views it. Simply that nobody else could legally duplicate it (outside of certain narrow cases) without being liable for damages.

I'm not trying to "justify" this, I'm trying to explain the point of the system. Original copyright law didn't really care about the idea of you copying a copyrighted work for private use, it was concerned with stopping commercial competition from profitting off of your work.

Listen, if I have a great idea about making a video game and I describe that game in intricate detail to a friend of mine, you are legally entitled to copy that game and publish it, even scooping me at it. However if I have a trivial idea about passing data over a network I can patent it and 0wn the int3rw3b. The point is that which ideas of mine you can use without paying me is completely arbitrary. If you scooped a poor game developer you'd be an ass - if you ignored some trivial "do X on a computer" patent you'd be in the right as far as everyone except patent attorneys was concerned, but the legal responsibility would not reflect this.

If he was duplicating Gigli and selling it he'd be taking money from people who would pay (however little) for the movie, cutting into the (however slow) market for the movie. If he downloads it for personal viewing, to evaluate the movie before making a purchasing decision, he harms nobody. He sounds like a collector who owns many movies, it's not like he never pays for anything, he's simply not sure he wants to pay for a product he may not like.

This demonization is silly. Copyright and patent laws go against the "natural" way of the world, in that if you see something you can attempt to copy it. They are intended to solve a specific problem with commercial interference. A technical violation of a barely-related law which doesn't actually harm anyone doesn't sound like it's in the same ballpark as depriving the original owner of their property. If we jump up and down and throw emotionally loaded terms around it'll get in the way of a valid discussion on how to best reward creators for enriching society - ideally in relation to how much society appreciates their efforts.

Slashdot Mirror

Besieged Movie Industry Suffers Record Takings

78 of 837 comments (clear)