Slashdot Mirror
Besieged Movie Industry Suffers Record Takings
nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that the movie industry, in yet another illustration of just how much damage the Internet is doing to the long-suffering members of the MPAA, has just endured a record breaking $1Billion dollar takings for the single month of June. Clearly there is a desperate need to tighten up copyright laws in the face of this huge mountain of cash that is literally being metaphorically syphoned into the studios' pockets. How will they survive? "
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.
Less suckage.
More money.
t
Here's some infomration to put that figure into perspective:
The box office tally for June 2004 is 37% higher than the same period in 2001.
...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.
Wait, does this mean you thought Dodgeball was good?!?
...how do they sleep at night?
The answer however is to easy to come up with.
Very comfortably, on a big pile of money.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
If you release movies that people WANT to see (Harry Potter, Spiderman, Shrek); than people will pay to see a movie? No F***ING WAY! What a concept.
Someone should report this new marking strategy of producing a quality product to the RIAA; maybe they can learn something.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
Boy, it must really hurt to have that much money coming out of their a$$holes!
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
"literally being metaphorically syphoned"
What the heck does that even mean???
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
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.
that Spider-Man 2 opened on June 30.
If reality was like Slashdot, most people would be (-1) Redundant.
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
I can't believe you admitted publicly to downloading Gigli! I would never tarnish the pristine surface of my hard drive platter with that piece of shite ;)
I did... is that so bad?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
More here.
The Army reading list
Its funny to know that the Video Game industry is STILL bigger than the movie industry even after record breaking growth.
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.
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... and... P2P rapes 3rd world children...
I hate all these people trying to guilt trip me into thinking I'm a criminal because I download movies, even though I pay to see them in theatre, buy them if I think they are excellent, and then they turn around and make more money then i will ever see off of something like chronicles of riddik. I think for every Van Helsing (arguably the worst movie EVER) a person watches, they should be entitled to download 2 movies.
Not many people have watched teh Clerks cartoon, but it's worth it jsut for the scene where Randall brings every shitty movie director into court and demands, under oath, that they admit that 'star wars 1 sucked' or something to that effect.
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
From the Sunday Herald (link at end of article):
Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge. The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
Sunday Herald
90% Professional Slacker
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.
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.
Sometimes they swing and miss.
SOMETIMES? You're fucking kidding me right? MONTHS at a time go by that I don't see a single movie that appeals to me. It's obvious that it isn't just me either as we see fantastic movies like The Butterfly Effect and Along Came Polly.
Those are obviously just "mistakes" right? Casts that include Ashton Kutcher as the star? Come on.
let's see if it's being literally syphoned then it's not metaphoric but if it's metaphorically being syphoned it can't be literally syphoned... it must have to do with the heavy sarcasm quotient.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
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
I downloaded Gigli
Wait... someone took the time to rip Gigli AND POST it somewhere?
What a waste of bandwidth (both personal and network).
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
No, but some top executive did sit in a room, read the script to Hidalgo, and think it was a tremendous idea worth financing for millions of dollars. That movie made me want to kill horses and I'm no horse killer.
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
Maybe if they gave refunds for shitty movies, they'd change their ways.
You have to remember that most of the /. crowd are the reason dodgeball has disappeared from schools these days. They were on the receiving end of those vicious headshots, and took their revenge on the world by creating spam, computer virii, and distributing copyrighted material for free over the net...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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...
"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."
...it was certainly better than the critically acclaimed "Gigli" or the various other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD.
Do you understand what sarcasm is? See, me saying "critically acclaimed", "Gigli", "and other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD" was supposed to clue you in to the HUMOR.
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.
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 !
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
Most theatres do... although only if you leave well before the end.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"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
Reinier Wolfcastle: Its me standing infront of a brick wall of three hours. It cost eighty milion dollars.
Jay Sherman: [To Reinier Wolfcastle] How do you sleep at night??
Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.
Jay: Yeash, Just asking.
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
You have to remember that most of the /. crowd are the reason dodgeball has disappeared from schools these days. They were on the receiving end of those vicious headshots
Speak for yourself. I always aim for the legs, as it's harder to catch that way.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
90% of everything is crap.
Also, crap is relative.
DNA just wants to be free...
is really working out for us, they're really on the ropes now.
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.
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
The LA Times has an interesting story today (registration required, sorry) about the Mexican music industry. It is in the process of being destroyed by piracy. I think that the movie industry is about five years behind the music industry in terms of the impact of downloading, mostly because the file size is so much higher. It will happen, though. Note well that that Harry Potter film that they are talking about cost about $120 million to make, as opposed to a record which might cost about $1 million. That money has to be recovered or the movie will not be made. Movies will, of course, continue to be made when piracy becomes rampant, but they will be dramatically different. They will be far cheaper, and will be filled with product placement. Hopefully, I'll be retired by that point. thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
And yes, I made that number up!
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
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
For you see, the poor movie industries only broke $1 Billion instead of $5 Billion. Obviously their profits were cut by 80% thanks to the evil Dr. Kazaa. Can't you see how they are now suffering? How our poor stars are only able to be afforded salaries in the lower nine digits? How the producers are barely able to make the payments on their own personal third-world countries, I will never know. This is an abomination that cannot be tolerated any longer.
Why, even when they offer us the ridiculously low subsidy rate of a mere $25 per DVD, do those villanous pirates continue to destroy this sacred and nearly-profitless art? Why, when the movies are so kind as to offer us amazingly low discount prices on drinks, snacks, and tickets, do they feel the need to steal the very food from the mouths of babies dependent on those ticket-sales. Babies who will never see their own space-shuttle for their 5th birthday, but will have to wait until they are 6!!! SIX, I say!!!!
The inhumanity of man towards man has indeed reached it's highest point, and I ask that we all bow our heads and weep for the loss of the Movie Industry, for it is they who suffer the most for our shortcomings as mere human beings.
Amen.
-The Libra
"Please be patient--The future will begin momentarily."
Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.
Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:
Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59
source
Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39
source
It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.
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
As I remember, we used to outlaw leg shots ("traps"), as they were too easy. If you were hit either too high or too low, you'd call "heads" or "traps", and unless there was a huge disagreement, play carried on...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
Maybe he downloaded it onto an old hard drive that was failing and then promptly threw it into the trash?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
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 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!
Oh, come now. You must admit that Hidalgo was the best Swedish actor playing a western cowboy racing through the Arabian Desert movie you've ever seen.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Counting the number of dollars made is pointless, because (1) inflation isn't taken into account and (2) blockbusters cost more and more to make every year, mainly as a consequence of (1).
Even adjusting for inflation is a tricky business, though. The more important thing to consider, if you're the MPAA, is the number of tickets sold The number of people paying for movie tickets, regardless of how much they paid, gives you a clear idea of whether the movie industry is losing customers to the Internet or not.
Fortunately, the numbers still support the "not" conclusion. A review of yearly movie ticket sales shows that while ticket sales haven't increased every year for the past two decades, overall they've continued to climb -- even through the 80s when cable television was becoming massively widespread.
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
Thank you, Chico Escuela.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Maybe he downloaded it onto an old hard drive that was failing and then promptly threw it into the trash? :-)
That's an excellent point! It must be part of his disk wiping procedure. I guess it now goes something like, "zeros, alternating, ones, alternating, Gigli..."
A dingo ate my sig...
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.
. . .since 'Ishtar'. . .
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
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.
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)
Pussies. The whole point of hitting them in the legs was to watch the jocks land flat on their face as their legs fell out from under them!
/Former Catapult-Arm Nerd
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
r e).
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairsha
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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."
Maybe I'm getting old and pissed off, but since I went to see "Return of the King" with the family I haven't bothered stepping foot into a movie theatre.
There's nothing which will draw me back there of my own free will. To be considered a criminal, to sit in a theatre seat and be watched in order to protect someone's interest over watching a movie.
A movie.
A movie isn't so precious that I have to be a criminal to watch it.
I'll wait for the DVD and enjoy it in private.
Since I play computer games and program all the damn time, it's not as if I'm starved for something to do.
I'd pay good money to sit in a theatre and see a thousand miles of film knotted up and ran through the guts and butts of a hundred lawyers and MPAA executives for all the excretions of their efforts. It's the least they could do to atone for the suffering and comminseration they're putting people through.
It would be a bonus if the lovely ladies of "Women of Sodom" would officiate the show.
(Cue the "priceless" commercial spot)
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Many theaters do refund your ticket if you leave before the end of the show. I know for a fact United Artists/Regal does.
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.
Becuase of the actions of the RIAA, a sort of "Downloaders Creedo" has been developed. Since the actions by the MPAA are slightly less offensive, they will prosper under the Downloaders Creedo.
Music:
1. Don't buy ANY RIAA music, EVER! (riaaradar.com)
2. Download all RIAA Music for FREEEEEEEEE!
3. Pay for any non-RIAA music
Movies:
1. Download all movies for FREEEEEEE!
2. If you like the download, buy the movie.
(You'll find yourself buying even more movies than you would had downloading never been invented).
... and in the DRM, bind them.
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)
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.
It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books.
While only a TV movie, 10.5, the show about a large earthquake hitting the US, was reportedly made because it was so bad that people would *want* to watch more reality TV after seeing it.
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
I bet they have discussions like this...
Exec 1: Here we have a script in which malevolent robots run amok, and stylish humans with big guns save the world by shooting them.
Exec 2: Hmm. How can we make it more marketable? What's a good name in robots?
Exec 1: Well, Isaac Asimov looked at the current robot-story market of his day, and found it flooded with tales in which malevolent robots run amok, and stylish humans with big guns save the world by shooting them. He created the Three Laws to prevent himself from repeating this cliche, and created some of the most beloved SF stories of the era, collected in the omnibus "I, Robot".
Exec 2: Catchy! We should use the name, draw in his fans.
Exec 1: Should we change the plot to reflect his creative influence in any way whatsoever?
Exec 2: Nah, too much work. just rename the eye-candy babe to "Susan Calvin".
Exec 1: I can taste the box-office receipts already.
Can you think of a better reason why they did it?!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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
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
How much longer before hollywood totally runs out of ideas? At the moment they're getting an average of about 0.2 original ideas per year from the mainstream industry but experts are predicting that the worlds supply of film ideas could run out as soon as 2006. Remakes have helped stretch the supply but already an IP crisis is looming. Movie studios however are confident that they have the reserves to meet consumer demand for the time being: they're using sequals, prequals, adaptations, book-to-films, comic-to-films, even old saturday morning cartoon-to-films to keep supply levels up. Recent writing-pool technology has even allowed combinations of comic-to-films and sequels as seen by Spiderman 2 and ofcourse the less environmentally friendly 'trillogy' which generally closes the door to additional sequals later on. Some say we already reached the point of no-ideas between 2000 and 2003 with the releases of Scooby-Do and Scary Movie 3 but others are more optimistic, suggesting that we can recylce remakes in another 20 years - remaking The Italian Job or Titanic for example could go on indefinately.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I prefer cold toilet seats and dentist chairs. I do however make the trek out for special events, like Matrix movies, Star Wars and Harry Potter flicks.
I don't see the appeal anymore. You're locked into a cold room with uncomfortable chairs that don't recline, kids behind you kicking your chair, yelling etc. Some fat lady with 2 huge tubs of popcorn talking at full volume on her cell phone. I went to see LotR: The Two Towers last year and a full on fight broke out in the seats behind me.
I have a 65" HDTV in my living room with 5.1 surround sound. I'd rather spend 20$ or less on a nice DVD with good reviews 5-6 months after it's theatre debut than spend 40-50$ at the theatre. Until they can tempt me into coming back I won't go. This would be the same if all I had was a little 20" TV in my bedroom and played DVD's on my xbox. It's still better than sticky floors, seats with missing arm rests, rude people and over priced sweet tarts. I can make popcorn for 30 cents at home, I don't need to pay 3.50$ at the threatre.
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.
The rise in revenue is due solely to increased ticket prices, not because more people are seeing movies. In fact, movie attendance has dropped in three of the last five years. The fact is, there will always be a market for movies, as few non-slashdotters consider watching a bootlegged movie on your computer to be a "good date", but tickets will instead become even more expensive.
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
How is something both literal and methaphorical? Is that like spiderman being both a literal spider and a metaphor for, uhh, the decline of western civilization?
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!
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...
Speaking of potential sales, given that we all know your average UFO contains at least 5 aliens, and that there have been over a thousand sightings a year, how have aliens downloading memories of movie going experiences hindered movie studio bankrolls? Especially if they go back to their homeworld, and have other aliens download the movie going experience from them! This is a giant alien peer to peer network, and the MPAA/RIAA need to hop right on it. They're losing untold numbers of gold pressed latinum bars!
And if you want a proper movie review/rating, your first stop ought to be here.
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.
He's Danish.
HAND.
Meanwhile, I'm a small independent movie producer, I don't back the MPAA, region encoding, or CSS. I am even a big supporter of fair use... and I can't even get a booth at a hacker convention. But don't worry, the guys who advocate downloading my film over buying a copy got a space...
Don't get me wrong, on my website we pretty much encourage people to download our film, because the way things are going, we don't have any other means of distributing it. But I love how everything is about the P2P networks versus the Hollywood Big Boys. You know, there are still independent movie producers out there... we just don't get any attention from anyone. I guess the only way you get noticed anymore is if you make a big scandal about how Disney won't distribute your flick...
I think I'll go see if the MPAA is hiring...
HaXXXor.com - Naked Chicks Teach You How To Ha
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
Sorry, I was misinformed and appologize to all of the Danish people including Vigo.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
"There is absolutely No justification for stealing, regardless of the quality of the product."
I'd agree with that except for a couple of things.
1.) If somebody's spending >24 hours downloading a questionable quality movie for the sake of saving a few bucks, it is a true indication that ticket prices are too high.
2.) There is no guarantee of quality or satisfaction. Trailers can lie to get you to see the movie, but you can't get a refund if it really sucks. (Boy, imagine if they had a refund policy back when Godzilla came out.)
It may be immoral to download and watch movies without paying anything blah blah blah, but it's a powerful expression of supply and demand that we (the consumers) have. The mere fact that Hollywood is thriving illustrates the point that there is SOMETHING wrong with what they're doing, but people are still willing to spend money.
I really wish Hollywood would just listen to why people would jump through so many hoops to download a movie and figure out what to do to compete with that instead of trying to buy senators to change the laws. Only then would they know that Rob Schnider is a money repellent.
"Derp de derp."
Better re-read your industry group history. The MPAA (and it's politically-very-well-connected) head, Jack Valenti) was heavily involved in the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the DMCA, to name a few of their more egregious crimes against the nation. So, no, while they have avoided most of the RIAA's PR gaffes they are by no means blameless or any less dangerous than their sister organization.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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
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.
They seem to be confusing the ever popular dodge-ball with the somewhat less popular rule-ball....
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Hmm let's see. Typical American Movie scenario:
1) Bad guy committs atrocious act of violence/injustice to some innocent/good guys close/related to the main Hero/Good guy.
2) Hero/Good guy suffers immensely throughout this, reaching deeper and deeper levels of self criticism/blame suffocating in a moral/psychological decadence.
3) Hero/Good guy eventually rebounds and starts chasing Bad guy.
4) Hero/Good guy gets a chance to fight Bad guy.
5) Bad guy dies (generally multiple times) a horrible and violent death.
6) Hero/Good guy gets the girl/money/both and lives happily ever after.
7) (Potentially) Curse at yourself for paying money to see this again?
Well how much can you push this to make money out of it? It's happening more than 3 decades now, eventually it will collapse or mutate. No wonder Blockbuster has expanded the foreign film section to a whole isle!
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Alec Baldwin: Um, does anybody know where this came from?
... and which one ... will die. ... this robot, he's got a heartbreaking decision to make about whether his best friend lives ... or dies.
Homer Simpson: Oh, *there's* that movie script I wrote! Where did you find it?
Alec: On my pillow.
Homer: The important thing is, it's got the perfect part for you. Either one of you! It's about a killer robot driving instructor who travels back in time for some reason. Ron Howard's attached to direct!
Ron: I am not!
Homer: Well, he expressed an interest.
Ron: No I didn't!
Homer: Did too!
Ron: I did not!
Homer: You lie!
Alec: Yeah, Homer, um, most movie scripts are 120 pages. This is only seventeen. And several of the pages are just drawings of the time machine. [holds up one of Homer's drawings; it appears to be a chair with a beach umbrella attached to the back and an alarm clock wired to the side]
Homer: So you're saying you don't want to star in my movie.
Alec: I'm sorry,
Homer. Homer: Well, if Alec is out, I'm out too. You're on your own, Potsie. [shoves script at Ron]
Ron: [reading title] "The Terminizor: An Erotic Thriller"?
(Later, after Alec and Kim have thrown Homer out.)
Kim Basinger: Oh, look at these snapshots of us with Homer. Wasn't that a fun weekend?
Alec: Yeah. Homer was a pretty good guy. And we just tossed him out like a Golden Globe award. I've got to admit, I miss the way he used to tuck us in and kiss us on the forehead.
Kim: Forehead?
Alec: Aw, maybe I should've made his movie.
Kim: Yeah, it wasn't that bad. I mean the script might even work if you got rid of the talking pie.
Alec: What, are you crazy? It's a buddy picture. Without the pie, it would just be me on screen for two hours.
Kim: Oh, yeah, and you'd hate that.
Ron: No, no, no, you can't lose the pie! The pie's your heart.
Kim: Okay, okay, keep the damn pie.
(One month later, at the 20th Century Fox Film Studios, Ron Howard pitches a movie to executive Brian Grazer, who sits at his desk.)
Ron: [emotionally] And it grows, to a powerful, emotional climax when the father has to choose which one of his children will live
Brian: [bored] Pass.
[Ron lets out a sigh]
Brian: What else you got?
Ron: [thinks desperately] Well, well, there is this one thing. It's about a killer robot driving instructor that travels back in time for some reason.
Brian: I'm listening.
Ron: Okay, okay, well, you see
Brian: Ehh.
Ron: Did I mention his best friend's a talking pie!
Brian: Sold! Howard, you've done it again!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I'm afraid it's ongoing trend. People just used to be so much more tolerable when we all were younger...
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.
Interesting thing about those ads is that every last one of the people portrayed whining about piracy has already gotten paid long before the feature comes out and thus long before piracy can even be an issue. They don't wait to see how many people come to the theater before they pay the key grip or the costume designer. So the entire premise of the advertisement is bogus.
These apparent errors lead me to wonder about the status of this LA Times article. Did the MPAA gain permission? If the MPAA did obtain permission, why didn't they provide the full citation details? Why didn't they modify their own copyright for the page?
I'm considering asking the MPAA about this article, but I thought I'd let Slashdotters know about the incident first. It's possible that the MPAA has the right permissions, but you would think they'd try to set a good example in how they provide the reprint. MPAA's anti-piracy for US consumers is 1-800-NO-COPYS and hotline@mpaa.org. I live in Canada, so I'll try emailing.
-- SYS 64738 --
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.)
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
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.'
The robots never got around the laws they were programmed with. In one story they are working in a fairly high risk environment, where humans are exposed to radiation, slightly risky to humans, but will destroy a robot brain.
Warning, spoiler for the story follows.
The robots are modifed so the "will not allow a human to come to harm". One of the robots kills a human by dropping a weight on him, it lets it go, knowing it can catch it safely, so it isn't enandering the human. Then when it is falling, it doesn't have to catch it, becuase it misssing that part of the law. Calvin has to figuire out which one of the identical robots is the killer.
There are also some occastions where the robots have to harm someone to avoid greater harm, but they aren't getting around the three laws, but trying to follow them as best they can. The laws are their programming (if they are programmed that way, as the story demonstrates humans can make robots that aren't), and sometimes they act in ways the programmers didn't expect, but they never 'get around' them, the programmers just don't realise the consequences.
Like the effort to help a robot decide which human is more worth saving if they have to choose, which tells them to ingore things like appearance and results in a robot concluding that robots are more worth saving becuase they posses better qualities than humans. It's pretty much right in a way too, in Asimov's world the robots really are better and more noble than the humans, adn pretty much save the human race.
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"
Geez man, are you going through male menopause or something ?
...especially when we know that in the /. community, most irritating comments are made by 18 years old kiddos.
9 24 8421
Share your point of view if you want, it'll be my pleasure to read your comments but don't come here to put some shit on my head.
Despite the tone you used, you have point, the fact that they still get A LOT of money does not justify or make any less worst the act of pirating a movie.
But, in the end, it all comes back to what I said in an earlier post about the RIAA
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108810&cid=
intead of discouraging me to pirate, encourage me to buy.
gimme a reason to buy your product and I'll do it.
I feel sorry for the music/movie industry for the money they lose but its all about evolution. Internet is here and changes a lot of thing, those who cannot adapt will undoutedbly lose money...if not their skin.
Internet is about sharing, its about knowledge, information. That cannot, will not be stopped, anytime soon anyway so MPAA and RIAA might as well get used to it.
They need to change their business model. Like I said, its sad for them because its not the quality of their product or anything related to them that triggered the situation.
But that's how it is and they need to adapt.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
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.