Slashdot Mirror
King Kong vs. Movie Pirates
Caoz writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article about movie piracy with Peter Jackson providing some comments. There a couple of comments that I thought were surprising. Like an executive admitting that file sharers are not the biggest threat to Hollywood. From the article: 'There is a very dark, black cloud in this game. It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime.' Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime." Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Haven't you realized this very dark and cloudy organized group they're referring to is the Bitorrent User Group (BUG)?
I do have another question though - Why don't consumers buying/wearing fake branded products get arrested?
A Nike t-shirt is probably as easy and cheap to copy and produce as a DVD movie. Imagine law enforcement officers roaming the streets and ripping counterfeited t-shirts off materialistic girls.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Why are they after BT users more than the crime syndicates? Because BT users are a far more high-profile target. And BT users don't have the money or clout to get themselves out of trouble. When a BT user is charged, they usually fall on their knees begging for a settlement. When (more like if) the crime syndicates are charged, money talks and suddenly the case "disappears".
It's like asking a bully why he picks on the little guys. He's afraid of messing with kids his own size.
unable to resolve function slashdot.sig(), aborting...
I don't like this article. It claims that box office releases are "unprofitable, expensive form of marketing".
The truth is that hollywood has made an art of hiding profits ever since they started signing profit sharing agreements with actors and directors. Sure, a crappy movie isn't going to make a good ROI. But the movie industry generally makes out quite well.
Because it is easier.
2) Since BT users are not prone to violence they're easy targets. It's kind of like the TSA at airports, rather than doing something useful but hard, such as securing the borders or inspecting the millions of containers shipped through our ports every day, each one a potential WMD delivery system, Homeland Security has chosen to do something useless and easy, namely harass people at airports. I'm sure there's some division of the **AAs that has some metric where they are rewarded for the number of pirates they catch, regardless of whether or not those pirates are the Yakuza, Mafia or the Tongs who are making a million copies of Spiderman 2 at a pop or if they're BT users who downloaded a low resolution transfer Dr. Who episode. In large organizations it's often OK to do things that are completely worthless, so long as you look really busy while you're doing them.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
They're assholes.
Yes, bit torrent users are assholes. At least the ones who use it to steal movies, music and software. Don't kid yourself, bit torrent would be nothing, practically unknown and probably dead, if it weren't for all that free stuff that you'd normally have to pay for.
Five years ago when Napster was getting sued, everyone on Slashdot--editors included--rallied behind the idea that they should lay off the companies providing the apps and going after the individual infringers, because that was fair and logical. I think nobody expected they'd actually do that. And now they are, and so the rallying cry has changed.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Yep. It's easier to be lazy and look slightly useful than to actually effect change. Office Space said it best.
Just like most things in life. Play the part just enough to have people think you're doing something while really only barely skating by.
"I always thought that piracy connotes something glamorous," Mr. Meyer said. "Let's call it what it is: theft. I think it's just like shoplifting."
Bollocks. If I were to take something from a shop, then the shop can't sell it to someone else, and thus can be said to have lost not only revenue but also an asset.
If I were to copy a movie from the Net, then you might at a stretch argue that I've deprived the studio of revenue (although I still pay to go and watch movies which are good - if I download one and it sucks, I don't pay to go and see it), but I think it's pushing it to say that I've stolen an asset. It still exists, right where it was. The movie studio doesn't have anything less than they did when we started.
Revenues from movies are dropping because the studios are rarely coming out with anything original. Stop making dull sequels, or remakes of 60s TV shows, and perhaps we'll see movie revenue return - but likely not at the cinema, as the article says; people are now commonly watching movies on their home cinema system.
From TFA:
Hollywood reported global revenue of $84 billion in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm. With most theatrical releases amounting to little more than an unprofitable, expensive form of marketing, DVD's have become Hollywood's lifeblood: together with videos, they kick in $55.6 billion, or about two-thirds of the industry's annual haul, with box-office receipts making up most of the rest.
From that paragraph, isn't it clear that accessibility ("freedom" to an extent?) is what people want. People want to be able to get access to a movie when they want to and watch it in whatever way they feel like.
The whole system is broken, because it's old and redundant. Money is spent exorbitantly in all the wrong places and, quite simply, isn't obeying simple rules of economics. You want to push your product out as much as possible at a price that people are prepared to pay.
The only saving grace is that this antiquated system is doomed. I, for one, welcome the new era of "Pro-Ams" and the demise of DRM.
without having to even make new films that might flop
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that people might be downloading movies which were in fact box office flops.
"Well, I didn't think it was going to be good enough to see in a theater, but for FREE, well..."
It's easy. If two gun-wielding burglars bust in my door and tell me if I open my fool mouth they're gonna bust all kinds of chaos on my ass... then the next morning I see the paperboy stealing CDs out of my car, I'd be all like "Hey! Paperboy! What the heck do you think you're doing?"
Someone might ask "Why did you turn in the paperboy and not those two beefy guys?" and I'd be like "Err... I could've, you know, taken them, but umm... that was like my favorite CD Jimmy was touching. I mean, I've got renter's insurance anyway so I can replace my flatscreen, and my life savings was just cash anyway. I mean money would eventually rot away. But that kid was trying to take my original digital remastered recopy of Zeppelin and I just don't let anyone touch that!"
Well, according to the US economic census the total revenue of all sorts of entertainment and recreation was about $142 billion. That includes live performing arts, bowling alleys, and a lot of other stuff you can't put on a website for download.
The total economy was over $18 trillion in 2002, so arts and entertainment represent about 0.7% of the total US economy in this census. I'd say the effectiveness of the tactic would be about nil.
The only smaller categories in the census were management companies (mutual funds and the like) and educational services (Princeton SAT prep, commercial trade schools like DeVry, corporate training outfits). Categories taking in over a trillion dollars include construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, finanace & insurance, and health care & social assistence. Hollywood is barely on the financial radar.
You find it difficult to understand that something not worth seeing at $30 is worth seeing at $0? Are you similarly baffled by the appeal of sale prices?
Over at Yahoo, they are offering a $5/month unlimited music download deal, so some people have come to a rather astute conclusion that illegal music downloaders owe RIAA no more than $5 a month.
In this fine New York Times article, it is revealed that Hollywood's real enemies are organized criminals who are able to spend up to a million dollars to buy DVD duplication machines in order to mass produce those pirated DVDs. Many Hollywood people, unlike the clueless RIAA crowd, know that college kids in their dorms downloading movies on BitTorrent are NOT their enemies, but there is an impatient bunch who are eager to put them in the same category as those career criminals.
Downloading movies is not the same as downloading music -- whereas somebody could download thousands of songs, but it is technically much more difficult to download "thousands" of movies. I know some college kids have time to kill, but come on, not that much time. Now let's do some calculation. Let's say some guy downloads movies illegally every day and gets caught by the "Download Police", what should his punishment be? I say he owes Hollywood no more than $17.99 a month for the duration of his "criminal downloading career", because that's how much Netflix charges per month for unlimited DVD movie rentals.
Sun and Fun
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that people might be downloading movies which were in fact box office flops.
Obvious answer: The movies are worth the price of the download (free) but not $9.00 at Lowe's, as you pointed out.
Answer to consider: When you level all the mountains, the molehill left standing looks that much taller.
Plus... Lord of the Rings made NO money because of the fucking pirates so no wonder he's pissed. I mean it's not like he made more money than you and I EVER will put together for the rest of our lives in like an 18 month period... oh and the actors didn't get paid ungodly sums of money like we won't ever see unless we start working at a bank... Wait... where was I going with this.
It's funny the summaries title mentions King Kong. I've had a copy (VHS) on order with Amazon for a couple months now. I want to get it for my father, the problem is it doesn't seem to be in stock. I can get bilked by the "used" sellers or eBay. But I want a new copy from Amazon (so I can add a few dollars and get free shipping). They even lowered the price of the item while it's been out of stock, but I have yet to find out when more will be in.
Does the MPAA have anyone to blame but themselves when people pirate movies they can't, in fact, buy in stores?
Disney is always doing the "this is the last time it will be available for awhile" marketting stunt to create a buying frenzy with their classic films, then try to figure out how to create sales the rest of the year, when they could just let things be steady year long.
I want to get Sin City on DVD, but the one they released has way too small a list of extras. I fully expect a "deluxe" edition to appear (like with Pulp Fiction). Result? I'm not buying anything.
Because China has nuclear weapons and laughs in their faces.
"No studio is going to finance a film if the point is reached where their possible profit margin goes straight into criminals' pockets."
Given the fraudulent bookkeeping practices used in Hollywood, it seems like studios are simply concerned about which criminal gets to pocket the profits.
Or in the immortal words from "The Princess Bride"
"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen..."
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
They are being sued, because they are involved in distributing material the companies have copyright for, this infringing the copyright. Am I right or am I right? Why is this so difficult to understand? Or are you still just trying to justify it's ok to distribute copyrighted material because it's fairly easy?
There is no such thing as an "intangible asset". It is a legal fiction intended to prop up a failed business model. So much of US Capitalism now relies on these outmoded artificial concepts that it is becoming necessary to invent increasingly bizarre laws to deal with it.
Look, just because you had an idea, wrote a song, made a film, painted a picture or whatever, doesn't mean anything. All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Since you're not referencing, should we assume that your source is so unreliable and based on redefining terms like 'household' and 'intruder' that you're embarrased to post it, or just that you're full of shit?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
For the same reason that dogs lick their bollocks...because they can.
No but, yeah but, no but...
>>"I still go and buy the DVD when it comes out, IF the movie is good."
And there lies the problem. At least as the Studios (tm) see it. You see, they are just a factory mass-producing a cheap and quick product, pumping out movies at an insane rate. They are aware that most of them are crap, but that people will just go to the theater for the fact of getting out of the house, or buy the DVD because it is the "Hottest New Release".
So what happens? Most people go to the theater on opening weekend, and even if they are disappointed afterwards, the *already* paid! Add to this a heavy marketing blitz and lots of hype, and you ensure that a lot of other (gullible) people will still go to the theater on subsequent weeks just to see what all the buzz is about -- regardless of reviews on opening weekend.
Now, if these people start downloading the movies off the Internet to "see what all the buzz is about" instead of coughing $8.00 to watch it at the theater (or $24.00 to buy the DVD first hand), then guess who doesn't make a profit?
Of course, the intention of a lot of these people downloading the movies, like you, is to "try before you buy", and they usually have a sincere contemplation of buying the DVD or going to the theater -- *if* the movie is good. And of course, like others have said, the true fans will pay for the experience afterwards, because they only wanted to have access to it for the geek-value -- but again, only *if* the movie is good. However, most of them are not, as we all are aware, so they end up skipping the theater run.
The Studios (tm) know this. They know that most of the films they produce are not worth the celluloid they are printed on. But they still want to rely on getting as many people as they can to *pay* up front. Pirated copy downloads and "try before you buy" methods prevent this sneaky model from succeeding.
Now, I do not condone piracy, but I strongly advocate the need to reform the entire business model of the Movie Industry.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
"Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?
That kind of thinking was pretty popular in the 20th century. In fact, it still is in countries such as Cuba and China. If you dismiss the value of human effort so much, maybe you should look into moving to one of those countries.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
I agree, and I believe releasing to DVD and cinema simultaneously would completely destroy cinema, the question is, does anyone care if cinema is destroyed, really?
The flip side: I'm sure everyone knows someone who has a movie rental account and are doing the 'Rent, Rip and Return'. We have a huge choice of online rental sites in the UK and many people have production lines of movies which they'll probably never watch, with all the trailer crap taken out. The publishers will never allow that level of piracy to take place until they have a watertight copy protection mechanism (which will never happen).
The solution is very simple. Just make movies cheaper. If an original copy can be bought for about the same price as a bootleg version, nobody will buy the bootleg. Especially when the original version also contains a nice booklet etc.
:-) And I don't get paid millions...
Why do movies and music have to be that expensive? I think the main reason for this is, that the industry is used to paying very big salaries to the people involved. Why do actors and musicians get paid millions for a single movie/record? It's just a job, just like mine. I think I even work harder than most actors
If they cut down on salaries they produce movies a lot cheaper and then also sell it cheaper.
There should be a big fat warning on DVDs that have unskipable contents, another big fat warning for ads. Then we would see how the market likes them.
It's too bad the entertainment industries are so paranoid about file sharing when they could be using it to make money, and become more well-known. http://www.925m.com/archives/2005/08/sponsoring_p2 p.html
If they'd just be creative and innovate a little, they could generate and control a brand new industry.
Aren't all warez groups technically "organized crime" organizations? They're groups whose main objectives are illegal (copyright-infringing, whatever).
rooooar
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity.
With what reason, exactly? An idea does nothing and belongs to noone per se, when a person has it he can declare it as his or humanity's or whatever he fancies. Obviously that influences who he's going to explain it to. If that idea is a survival advantage that he'd like to keep for his own genes he won't share it. The idea itself does not include the concept of "belonging to humanity". The only natural law is the law of the strongest, i.e. if you harvest a banana and a thug comes by and beats you up that's now his banana. Society is a way of enforcing rules the majority saw as useful (such as "the banana belongs to the guy who harvested it").
The only way to make him share it when he doesn't want to is by means of oppression. And I'm sure you don't want an "open thought police" to go around and interrogate people if they had any worthwile ideas and incarcerate anyone for thoughtcrime when they don't share an idea.
Besides, remember, that way of thinking means that ideas like construction plans for US technology, weapons and bases would have to be publicly acessible so any terrorist or person working for hostile organizations (chinese army?) could grab the plans for US cruise missiles (nukes may be of less interest because of the materials required) off the web and build his own, grab the plans for the patriot system and fortify his base, etc. Do you think everybody should have access to potentially dangerous information?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Did you really just call somebody you disagree with a communist? That's so last century, man. You have to call them terrorists now.
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
BS! My ideas are my own, though someone else may of had similar ideas. Giving someone the right copyright or patent something for (key phrase, which I'll come back to later) a limited tyme benefits the person and society. Not everyone will work on something unless they benefit from it and with many people that means making money. Many things won't exist if the creator doesn't benefit in some way, and because most people have to eat, and many have to provide a roof over their family's heads, if they can't make money or at least try to then they won't bother with creation. Now back to the key phrase, "limited tyme". I'd like to see copyright and patent terms go back to the 14 years with a one 14 year term extension Thomas Jefferson came up with. If you can't profit on something within 28 years then you're doing something wrong or it's not much of a benefit. By having longer terms it means those who make it, ie make a lot of money or some such, doesn't need to create as much to keep the money coming in, therefore long term limits discourage the creative process which is exactly what copryrights and patents are supposed to encourage.
FalconShould there be a Law?