Slashdot Mirror
Movie Studios Unveil New Anti-Piracy Lab
PaulusMagnus writes "According to the BBC Walt Disney, Sony, Paramount, Warner Bros, Universal and 20th Century Fox have formed a new organisation called the Motion Picture Laboratories. They've also given them a nice tidy sum of US$30m to play with to develop new technologies to combat piracy." From the article: "There are thousands of new concepts floating around the hi-tech community about how to develop tools to fight piracy ... Researching and developing these technologies now will help save the major studios and other motion picture producers and distributors money in the future."
Die MPAA!
Make another "Mary Kate and Ashley Olson" movie, and *nobody* tries to pirate it.
Success!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Price your movie tickets within the reach of NORMAL FAMILIES!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They actually think they can stop piracy
Technoli
Can't wait to see what they got. Then see which clever monkey among us breaks it for $0.30 ...
I had a flame... but she had a fire.
...and not one penny for good movies!
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
US$30m
Another $30m bypassed pressing Shift.
Why don't they take that $30M and make a movie people might want to pay money to go see?
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
I thought the best "technology" was to make a decent product. Then people would likely feel more inclined to actually pay for it, rather than waste their $$$ on a turd.
Jory
Just outlaw motion pictures! When there are no motion pictures to pirate, no one will be able to pirate motion pictures.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"we're not making enough!, oh here's US 30M to play with new technology to potentially deter the piracy community"
If they mass-produced lots and lots of porm at, say, $1 per DVD the market would be enormous and it wouldn't be worth anyone's trouble trying to copy it illegally.
Stick Men
Copy protection can and will be broken, unless the studios do things like weld the discs to the inside of the DVD players.
Goo goo g'joob.
This just means you can kiss all your "fair use" rights goodbye. No mater what they try, it will certainly hobble my fair use rights to make copies of my disks so the kids cannot ruin the originals....
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Judging from this summer's releases, the studio's have obviously found the perfect solution, only release material nobody would want to copy. So far, it appears to be working. No wonder cinema and DVD sales have fallen off so much.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
not making the content to begin with?
http://chrono.posterous.com/
Lower the cost of the theatre tickets and lower the cost of DVDs!
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
All the while, DVD Jon sits in his laboratory funded only with chips and soda. Score: DVD Jon: 2 MPAA: 0
Seriously, how many pirated copies of TOP movies actually make their way into the world via cameras? I mean, most the cam caps I have seen are horrible, poor audio and poor video, nothing I want to watch, especially on an HDTV. The GOOD copies come from screener versions of the movies. Heck some even have the, if you are watching this call...
Also with new digital equipment at theaters I am starting to wonder if some people working these booths haven't found some new way to offload the movies and possibly make copies that way. It just seems that there are too many HIGH quality rips coming out to possibly be the result of geeks with cameras.
Finally, while ticket prices are arguably high, I do not believe the real problem is ticket prices so much as nothing people are wanting to see. Actually I am more annoyed with the theater to dvd turn around time. I would honestly prefer this get as short as 3 months even on GOOD movies. Once again the digital formats available make this transition a lot more feasible, and most the extras are filmed during production or shortly post-prod anyway. So the three months release time should be enough to clean them up and release great DVDs....
If only the intelligent and tech-saavy people were running these industries nowadays and not the old fossils who developed the industry into what it is...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
$30 million stating out, and nowhere to go but UP! I want that job. It'll be like the anti-virus and operating systems security industry all over again. Pay us to protect you, make you feel good, and we'll do a crummy enough job so that you keep wanting to pay.
Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
That would cost money. The movie industry is not a charity. They can't afford to do things like that.
Unlike this "$30 million dollars to piss in the public's faces" lab, or the massive marketing campaigns wherein the MPAA insults you for being one of the few people stupid enough to go see a movie in a theatre, or the hugely expensive lawsuits where they attempt to sue God for allowing pirates to exist. These things, of course, pay for themselves.
This will come in handy for them when they actually manage to make a movie people want to see!
two words: RCA out. Fancy encryption can always be trumped by an a/v signal out into a recording device. It's not the fastest, but it works everytime.
According to the article they are looking into "ways to jam camcorders being used to record movies in cinemas illegally, and developing methods of detecting illegal content sharing on peer-to-peer networks". I don't have a problem with that. At least they're not proposing another copy protection scheme that will only ever inconvenience their paying customers while the pirates probably won't even notice.
Yet.
The C-64. I remember ripping the C-64 game protection just for fun. They spent tons. What will change now? Only the names.
These movie gatekeepers are just money hungry, the more we take from them the less it is.
I've got a way for them to stop piracy. It's called not overpricing your product. I used to pirate a lot of movies, then I discovered Zip.Ca, where I could rent 15 movies a month for $25. I could rent more, but I can't watch them that fast. If they would drop the price on CDs, I wouldn't pirate those either. I think the biggest reason for pirating is the cost of getting stuff the legal way. $10+ to see a movie in theatres, $80 for a concert, $20 for a dvd or cd. If they don't lower their prices, people will continue to pirate, no matter how much they try and stop it.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"Planned projects include devising ways to jam camcorders (blah blah about piracy...)"
This will be excellent to have around when you don't want something you are doing recorded. Imagine all the shiat governments could get away with then! Whoo doggies!
The brightest minds in the world being paid to create copywrite protection is NO MATCH for the brilliant mind in some Norweigan country who is MOTIVATED to crack that protection.
It's always a losing game. Maybe think about offering better choices and making it more CONVIENIENT to get music? Oh what do I know... I'm just a consumer!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
They can spend all they want. As long as the movie is viewable in some form, it can be captured. Even if they were to come out with the ultimate gee-whiz uncrackable encryption, all it takes is somebody to rig up their hdtv setup with a high def camcorder, and it's all over. It's not even a fair fight, because it's one that absolutely impossible for them to win... kinda like trying to keep people from snagging a picture off the 'net. No matter what you do to try and protect it, there are ways around it.
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
The MPAA produces you!
Have we not seen since the days of VCR's and tapes and CD's that things are NOT changing? No matter what, there is always going to be someone trying to circumvent the technology, and someone is going to succeed. I'm compare this with terrorism:
To think that we can stop terrorism is complete hogwash. We may kill a ton of bad apples, but there's always gonna be atleast one more guy that thinks he's saving the world from the "infidels" by blowing himself up in public.
Rather than fight the technology, work with it and in a more positive direction. Don't just try to keep finding "patches". The day piracy ends will be the same day Windows FINAL, Completely Patched Edition comes out.
Now, I'm off to combat childhood obesity and global warming!
I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to watch a movie.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
... it will create more tech jobs.
Now somebody is going to have to create a fair use lab so people can actually view the movies they buy.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I don't care what they do or what they invent, as long as I can make digital copies of the DVDs (or HD-DVDs or whatever they are called in the future) I legaly buy. It's legal to do so where I live and hence I should be able to do it.
I don't own any ilegal movies, and I don't want to be punished for what others might do!
This looks like another attempt at staling an open standard on DRM, Hollywood do not wants online distribution now, they make too much money on DVD, and they where able to mandate all the DRM and content encryption and player revocation scheme that they never dream possible of in the HD-DVD and Blue Ray, on top of that now Apple, M$ and Intel are also bowing and incorporate all the nasty stuff that Hollywood is asking, from the M$'s "secure Content path" to Apple's TPM chip to Intel's hardware "trusted computer" shit. Hollywood is in such a powerful position now that all that they are doing is make sure they are completely locking the user out of they own content.
Cheap at twice the price!
In the words of Chairman Jobs, "Security is a journey, not a destination".
These guys are gonna pay $30m/yr and more every year, forever.
And pass on the cost to the consumer.
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
3.5 billion seems a little high if you ask me. I know there are many people out there pirating movies (I am not one of them, if I like it I buy it) but what are they counting here? Is this figure actually lost sales (of dvd, vhs, and movie tickets) plus legal costs of taking pirates to court plus their anti-pirating markenting campaign all rolled together?
I mean really, this is almost more expensive then Iraq. Yes I am exagerating but you get my point. If they are loosing 3.5bn a year and still making profits then perhaps they are charging too much.
Just my thoughts,
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
A simple guide for movie executives.
1. Release films worldwide at the same time.
2. Stop policing movie theatres with security guards and confiscating mobile phones as potential "recording equipment" and creating customer antipathy.
3. Release films to DVD within a month of their theatre release.
4. Stop putting region coding and anti-copying measures on DVDs.
And finally, the most important:
5. Stop your own employees from stealing and duplicating your films and selling them to criminal organisations for mass duplication.
Unveil some good movies. The amount of crappy reworking of old themes, overused CGI and explosions is pretty damn old, perhaps some movies with substance and, oh I don't know, a plot?
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
Spend that $30 million on studying how to make quality movies that people would want to pay to see.
Trolling is a art,
It's as simple as that. Before DVD, you had VHS which was bulky. I can store between 2-8 DVDs per VHS tape, depending on how the DVD box is made.
.org - irony alert): now that the very medium you have used for so long has been perverted, side stepped, reinvented and run over - what can you do now BUT adapt?
This lends to the accesibility that is the DVD. Everyone is exposed to movies, tv, visual content, that the value has gone down. We no longer need to worry about finding a mystery movie in a selection that was once thin due to the bulkiness of vhs, but we have the opposite problem, we have so many, that few are any good.
The classics are now on DVD, as they were w/ VHS, but the selection has grown due to the medium. The plastics are so much smaller AND cheaper, that instead of carrying more of each movie, the selection has exploded.
Now we can be more critical of our entertainment, since there's more to select from. The bar is much higher. The MPAA needs to recognize that before they become highway spinart.
With the advent of the internet, now we have more indie stuff than ever. The data doesn't want to be more free. It just is. No longer are we dealing w/ screeners that come from a cam corder. Now we jack into the movie projector, get it to our machines and broadcast before anyone else can, right over the internet.
So MPAA, RIAA, and everyone else under the old models of physical information, like news papers and print ads I pose this question to you, which will never reach you, 'cause this is slashdot.org, and not bigwigs@mpaa.com or whichver (I know, should be
Studios churning out lousy movies (remakes, tie-ins, sequels, whatever) nobody will see -or want to remember seeing-. Throwing another 30 down the drain is piffle. A good anti-piracy effort would be to create a good, high quality technology which is also affordable. That way a lot less people would want to spend the effort to get hold of bootlegs. That, and making fewer and better movies. The way I see it, the celebrities, the producers etc make way too much anyway.
Is today "anti-anti-piracy day" at Slashdot?
Look like it. And you know what's really weird? None of these stories even mentioned boats, guns, or tools for navigating/communicating on the high seas.
What's next? Equalling "pirates" to "terrorists"? Oh wait...Why not insert a visibly hidden serial number to the film. This serial number could be applied to all releases of the film (pre-theaters reviews one, etc). A unique serial number for each real.
If a pirated moved if found just go to the point in the film where the hidden serial number is located. Then track back you had access to that film. If a theater then threaten not to allow them access to your films any more and sue them for damages for allowing the piracy. If it is a pre-release reviewer edition the same actions can be taken against them.
How hard would it be to just add a serial number to 10 frames here and 10 frames there? Hidden in the back ground somewhere. In stead of just a number it could a colour or the insertion of a special object (IE: Green coffe cup of a specific style.)
I do not think the studios want to really know where the piracy is really come from - their own staff!
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
Movie pirates have found away around the movie industries recent attempts to stop piracy. By screwing on a simple IR Cut filter which can be purchased at any number of photography supply stores, the movie industries attempts to jam camcorders are thwarted.
The MPAA has announced lawsuits against the makers of these products and the retailers who sell them.
My Sysadmin Blog
"save money"... do they really think that some poor college kid who downloaded the latest Fantastic 4 dvd has 20$ lying around to actually BUY the dvd? Give me a break. The only thing they'll do is create less money because there will be even LESS exposure.
I know many a college kid who, when finished and out into the real world went and bought most of the dvd's they had downloaded while still poor. In this perfect MPAA world, they won't have ever seen the movies in the first place, and thus won't be buying them when they do have the funds. Common sense obviously eludes the **AA yet again.
Ignore pirates completely. If the amount of revenue you get from your product from paying customers isn't enough to produce more product, you stop producing the product and people don't have it. People aren't entitled to always have someone producing a product, and you're not required to always produce it.
If, however, pirates exist and you have enough paying customers to cover your costs, keep going and be fine; if you want to increase your profits, you can be like any other industry and cut your costs or try to make new product for which more people are willing to pay. Simple as that, and they are all market forces, and don't rely at all on legislation.
Contrary to all the analyses you read, the value of pirated product is not (current sales price)x(number pirated), it is actually (price of unit required to make volume current volume plus pirated volume)x(current volume plus pirated volume) - (current revenue), and those are totally different numbers. It may even turn out that, in order to get everyone to purchase a legal copy, that the price would drop such that the total revenue would be less than the current revenue - and that's an analysis you won't see in any report anywhere.
Hrm. I think I ought to try and get that last paragraph published somewhere, but I'm going to bet that it's not an original thought. If it is, that explains a lot...
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Music, I get that. It's kinda worth fighting for. But _movies_ ??? Not American ones, no way. Hollywood is just a torrent of unmitigated shit piled on top of shit. American films used to be good but now all they make is shallow vacuous violence.
I haven't watched an American film in over 3 years it's all cultureless, immature, predictable self-absorbed rubbish. Hollywood actors are wooden and fakey, scripts are of 8th grade school standard.
The only redeeming feature of Hollywood is the special FX, but come on...yawwwwn!. I can't hope for a speedier death for the American film industry. I would miss it not one jot. Maybe when the nepotistic gangsters running the show have been swept aside you guys will get back to the days when you had cultural and artistic credibility/ Good luck.
Getting this job is going to be very tough. I doubt a single (not "independently wealthy") here would not work for this or Microsoft--despite all the pointless anti-IP blather. I doubt you'd make it to an interview.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
MPAA + 30 million = Anti Piracy Lab
DVD Jon + Hot Pockets = Anti-Anti Piracy Lab
which one would you buy stock in?
However, throwing $30M at an anti-piracy effort lets them point fingers as do all the RIAA lawsuits against 14-year-olds, vs. actually admitting their business model is desperately fscked.
but quit paying the actors $15 million for one damn movie!!
Most of them don't even deserve to be payed that much.
Or don't put a stunt in that costs half of what the movie cost to produce. We've seen one car chase with tons of wrecks and explosions, we don't need another! Do you hear me Michael Bay?!
What happened to a good story?!
The answer to the studio's problems is already within their grasp. They should produce good quality movies that people don't have to pay the earth to see, and respect their customer base as their most precious asset, not a faceless mass to be cajoled into theaters and punished for trying to take something which they couldn't really afford.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Too much for just paying skilled script-writers.
Not enough to stop "pirates" (and pissed customers).
I'd work there in a heartbeat. And donate part of my pay to transhumanism--so all this IP stuff becomes moot.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
I hope they don't blow it all on ships of the line. I mean, first rates are great for blowing the French to kingdom come, but you really need a squadron or two of sleek frigates with lovely lines to stop piracy.
Ah, well, these companies are all a bunch of grass combing buggers, anyhow. Right bleeding sodomites, they are.
"Researching and developing these technologies now will help save the major studios and other motion picture producers and distributors money in the future."
Not making stupid fucking movies that bomb at the box office will save the major studios and other motion picture producers and distributors money in the future.
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
What kind of fricken "LASOR" could they build with $30 million?
Funny though, the BBC article talks about in-theatre technology and this article talks about distributing to "universities, companies, Internet service providers and other network operators," which aren't movie theatres.
Personally, I'd rather we keep the pirates in order to combat global warming.
$30 million dollars.. The best they are going to get out of all that money is probably a small reduction in the ammount of piracy, if even that. Their biggest mistake would be to try and and reduce piracy by creating more complex encryptions, etc.. Cause there will always be someone who will break it and figure out how to get around the new system. Waste of money if you ask me.
YAAAAR MATEY!!! 20+ years ago I was copying c64 games before I even owned a computer. I would copy records, vha & beta movies, audio cassettes and reel-to-reel tapes (via dads big band recordings. he was pirate to). my point being, I never stopped and I wont and neither will the hundreds of millions around the world. We aren't scared and don't care about new anti-copyright measures. Even if iTunes was free, I still wouldn't use it. I get off on the small rush of sticking-it-to-the-man everytime I click 'copy'. Great movies, software and albums still come out regardless of a decline in sales. New hardware is made everyday to speed up the copying process. Some people build hot rods from scratch, others grow their own vegetables. Chevy and Monsanto aren't arresting motorheads and small famers. If Walmart could sell orgasms, it would.
Computer world unites to laugh at movie industry and reminds them of the worldwide team of anti-anti-piracy people. I think the game industry tried this type of thing? Still haven't found a game that someone hasn't found a way around...
I find it to be true that this is a useless maneuver on the side of the MPAA, Unfortunately, as most comments seem to indicate, the MPAA is not looking to stop piracy altogether. By introducing such research labs they are looking to make the process difficult and annoying to make a close 1:1 copy of the images through traditional codec compression (Sure you can also always stick a hi-def camcorder on the viewing end). However, by making the process more complex for traditional rips, you start creating a class of elites (given that such people exist in the near future), those who know how to circumvent the protections- making it hard for traditional home users to do the same. Its a useless battle, however, because as things get more complex, the tools that we use to copy this media would also evolve to care for the more casual computer user. Thus forwarding the Revolution. Its a stupid game, and as has been stated before, they need to remodel the way they their business runs.
Just as long as they don't test their shit on poor defenseless animals, they can open as many labs as they want. I say.
Interesting... Philosophically, how can you stop somebody reading something that is designed to be read?
build a better mouse trap, get a smarter mouse.
Evolution or ID?
Always seemed interesting that the experts on copy-protection didn't bother using it.
Man, you really need that seminar!
You know, I used to think the movie industry was just slow. I mean, noone really enjoys those incredibly crappy handheld cam recordings of movies complete with people making noise, babies crying, and people getting up to goto the bathroom/consession stands midway through.
I think they're going totally in the wrong direction. They need to fling $30m at creating a online distribution model that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. That would stop online piracy. I mean, why spend 2-12 hours download the latest harry potter movie only to find out its a cam rip or its the latest "lebian space vixens" porn movie when you can download it for a buck or two?
I honestly hope this goes nowhere. And I hope they throw more money at pissing people off. Already since the first round of lawsuits I've stopped renting, buying and going to movie theatres. They need to get a clue. People downloading crap off the 'net would likely pay a small sum to download non-crap off the 'net, ala iTunes.
...and beg him to stop!
Would you pay for a legitimate torrent sponsored by the MPAA $2 to download and watch a hit movie once on your computer? Say, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or some good movie. Say $5 or $10 to download it and have unlimited watching. Sounds fair to me. I should be allowed to watch my DVD on my computer anyway. What do you think?
Offer reasonably priced streaming video.
"If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits. What do we do with a crappy movie? We double its advertising budget and hope for a big opening weekend. What have we done for the audience as they walk out of the cinema? We've alienated them. We've sold audiences a piece of junk; we just took twelve dollars away from a couple and we think we've done ourselves no long-term damage."--- David Puttnam, movie producer (from GQ magazine, April 1987)
Circumcision is child abuse.
The actual startup should be fairly small. They already have office space and staff. Even if they spend, say, $5M on some serious kick ass servers with tons of terrabytes and RAIDS and stuff, they'd have a lot left over.
Then they target the fringier market. With $25M, they easily purchase the rights to a number of "will definately sell" titles, and shove them out for $2.50 a piece. For an extra $.50, you can get high quality scans of all the cover and book art.
Then they open up the servers to the world. Let any existing movie that they DON'T own the rights for be posted (with copyright holder's permission, of course), to be downloaded by Torrent. Here's the catch:
1) For free, you host the file, they host the tracker.
2) For a small fee ($50?), they host the file and the tracker.
Since it's all by torrent, their bandwidth overhead is very, very low. Every torrent page has a little banner that says "Enjoy the movie, and please keep your torrent open.".
OR for a free membership, you have a UL/DL ratio. For a small fee (say $10 per year) you have an unlimited ratio. Again, bandwidth is not much of a concern for the company itself.
The servers will keep track of how much these movies are downloaded, and how they are rated by the people who watch them (10/10!). Right now, the MPAA refuses to import a LOT of good movies, because they aren't certain if there's a market for them. But with this system, if a movie is popular enough to hit a certain threashold, the company contacts the copyright holder and purchases non-electronic distro rights.
THEN they send out an e-alert to everyone who has downloaded it saying "Movie X to be available on DVD soon. Preorder your copy today, and save $X. Lots of bonus material to be had, plus a pretty case." A good majority of them will shell out $10 or so to buy the movie. Near instant profit. The company prints up a batch of the DVDs... enough to cover pre-orders... and puts the rest into an estore. The movie is popular enough that they might even be able to shop it around to Blockbuster et all.
More profit with near-zero risk. Near zero overhead, since bandwidth is covered, there's no physical product until there's a demand, and the MPAA is footing the bill of the building itself.
In the meantime, Google Ads is keeping their coffers full of loose change.
And now, what to do with all that profit... and not to mention the $20M left over from the initial budget?
Simple. As this company gets bigger and bigger, the MPAA gets smaller and smaller. Its stocks devalue. Its overpriced products stop turning a profit (because of their archaic distrobution method). Eventually, the MPAA itself becomes so devalued, that the offspring company hostilly takes it over. They fire everyone, dissovle the company, and now EVERY movie is distrobuted this way. Piracy isn't a concern for the new-MPAA, since they're offering a cheap, desirable alternative with little or no overhead.
Voila. For $30M, the problem is solved.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the *IAAs are fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music, as they always proclaim it is. 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, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI 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.
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." ---
Another lump of money spent to develop a better lock. Then give the lock and the key to the same people that will break them both. Smart.
Everyone here is so full of it. I hear all of these comments about the studios making terrible movies (true) and all of this stuff about overpricing (also true) but then I hear everyone saying that people would pay if only there was something worth paying for.
That is such BS! In the dorms at college, I watched everyone in my hall pirate Max Payne LONG after it came out and was already available for $20 at the local game store. How is that expensive, when the same people think nothing of spending $30 on pizza every night?
The mainstream people who pirate the most aren't your super-elite and very self-righteous computer geeks, simmering with hatred for the RIAA and MPAA. They're just your average joe sixpack (or soon will be) and they just don't care at all.
These are the people you see graduating at most colleges today. They are in the MAJORITY, with a small but very useable grasp on today's internet world. They will pirate forever, just because they can and they don't think it's wrong. DVDs could be $5 and they would still pirate.
I agree that faster internet speeds will make piracy even more common in the future. I agree that DRM and the like are wrong and misguided, and will fail miserably at stopping anyone. But I DISAGREE that there is some idealistic reason for the piracy. Let's just admit that people will steal anything without thinking twice, and let's stop with all the crying and crap about how you'd only buy it if (blah blah blah insert reason here)
Those who would buy DVDs and CDs and content of all kinds already buy it. Those who respect the artists that are getting the shaft are already REFUSING to buy it and boycotting the **AA. But nobody who blatantly steals every movie and song that they feel like stealing is ever going to stop and say "Oh! Everything is fairly priced now, and I will stop my idealistic, thieving ways!"
Get real, and just admit that you are justifying your stealing. You want it, you take it, end of story. It's just greed, plain and simple.
M$30 is a tidy sum. I'll gladly develop them a super incredible anti piracy system. Of course, all half tech savvy persons know it won't really work and won't have any effect on piracy, but the Movie Moguls don't know that...
Oh well, what the hell...
Come on. Support this initiative. Get all their technical anti-piracy brainiacs in one building. It gives us a single set of coordinates to test the orbital defense grid with.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
These movie piracy articles always have the same themes -- stop p2p, stop camcorders in theaters. The fact that 80% of pirated movies are leaked by industry insiders (New Scientist) is NEVER mentioned. They've got the public convinced that movie piracy consists of techno-geeks sneaking hidden cameras into theaters and posting the files on p2p networks. Never mind that those camcorder versions are crap. The high quality copies everybody wants are made directly from the originals by people within the movie industry. It's the same mentality as blaming terrorists for every problem.
...it's not what's causing them to lose money. They're losing money because they're making movies no one wants to see. They don't seem to understand that word gets around about bad movies and we're not such undiscriminating cattle that we'll shell out $9.50 just for the heck of it.
I just saw AVP: Aliens vs. Predator for the first time on cable. On the one hand I'm glad I knew to wait for cable (you can usually tell if a movie is dog sh*t from the trailer), but I'm also sorry I wasted two hours last night watching it. It's bad enough that it was crap -- but it's such a blatant attempt to sucker in the fanboys that it's just sickening.
As I think about this, I think there needs to be a Godwin's Movie Law:
When a movie is compared to Aliens in an effort to sell it, it is immediately relegated to the category 'Dog Sh*t' and should not be watched on any medium, ever (even free ones).
Translation: if moviemakers can't make their Sci-Fi film stand on its own and have to try to ride the popularity of Aliens to sell it, then you already know everything you need to know about it: it's crap.
And here are some of my personal movie laws:
- Do not watch a movie based on a video game, ever. It is not worth watching. If you know someone who actually paid to watch one, slap him with a large trout for being such a sucker.
- Do not star in any of the above movies -- it will wreck your career. People sometimes confuse bad writing with bad acting. Don't walk away from such a movie, RUN.
- CGI is no substitute for talent (yes, George, I'm talking to YOU)
So, grinding out monster-budget films one after an other, with high paid actors and no plot to speak of is any better?
I really enjoy going to the movies... but current films really make it hard to enjoy the visit to the theatre... but that would lead to a critique of the movie industry and their complete lack of innovation and this was intended as a funny post... not a depressing one.
They should research Perpetual Motion instead. It's just as doable but the return on investment will be much bigger!!!
..They're spending $30million to combat a problem that I am not a part of. That means they'll need to find other avenues of making up that $30million hit which will likely result in a increase in the sale price of this seasons DVDs. So now I am paying more for a product that is already overpriced and now that it costs even more it means more folks will result to obtaining a copy from friends rather than buying it. Anybody seeing the Catch 22 here? Then again, why bother buying a DVD when it first comes out, everybody knows the "Superduper Extremebit Remastered Digital Director's Cut" will just be out in a few more months anyhow.
I mean, it costs all of like $0.30 or less to press a DVD these days, another $0.20 to print the DVD cover, and $0.10 for the plastic shell. Sure, the original mastering costs a pretty penny, but spread out across something that sells hundreds of thousands of copies is nothing.
from the book of SOFTWARE copy protection.
I worked in this field for years; having been a misguided youth it was strangely appropriate. There was one brutal reality. The costs to invent copy protection schemes was exponential. It had the side effect of complicating the production process. The cost to break copy protection is linear. That, and you have a whole bunch more misguided youth that will try and crack it.
So the real issue is WHY? Is it commercial piracy that's the issue? Or the consumer? Either way - they seem to ignore another market reality - that is the death of the Video store is fueled by the availability of CHEAP DVDs...
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Then why do all movies cost the same? The Matrix, and sequels were some of the $100m+ movies you speak of. Cost $8.50 at the theatre near me. Sin City was $40m, mostly paid up front by Rodriguez, also cost me $8.50 at the same theatre. Gigli was $22m, and though I didn't see it, the price was the same, $8.50. Or taking some older films, Pi had a production cost of about $60,000 (1998 dollars). It was about $8.00 IIRC, though not at the same theatre (hadn't been built yet).
You know, I don't see a scaling of price and movie tickets. It seems to me I pay just as much to see a small budget film as I do a big budget film. This is additonally odd seeing as most big budget films make back their investment. Not universally true, of course, but generally they do. Many of them even make a lot of money.
So, if ticket prices truly were based on costs, shouldn't low-budget indy films be less? Wouldn't it even perhaps be a good business decision? I mean blockbuster effects type films are widely popular and with some marketing, it's easy to convince most people to go. However low budget indys are harder, people are used to high production values and thus often snub them. Wouldn't a lower ticket price help allure them?
Or, could it be, that it's just more of the movie industry being greedy? Remember these are the same people that are mandidating that for any HD movie spec HDCP will be REQUIRED. So be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, you'll have to have DVI/HDMI out to an HDCP compatible display. If you go analogue, no HD for you, if it even plays at all.
My bet? Ticket prices are atrifically inflated. The studios do NO competition on price. They've fixed one price, for all movies regardless of source and cost. The only variance is per theatre or area.
The day I start seeing cheap movies for less, and start seeing one production company trying to underprice another, maybe I believe they prices are justified. For now, I think they are in every way as reality based as CD prices: Which is to say not at all.
ROTFLMWLO!!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Don't get me wrong, you do have a right to do what you say, for your own personal use.
But it is a complete misstatement to attribute this ability to the doctrine of "fair use". Fair Use covers situations where the reproduction is used commercially (or similarly), not just for personal use.
Perhaps the home taping act is what gives you this right? I'm not sure.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Why can't they have a 'How to make decent movies' lab instead.
The recent pish that has been produced by the US film industry doesn't merit the price of a ticket, let alone the price of a ticket, the price of cinema food, the rotten stench of rancid cinema food, followed by the sheer predictability of the formulaic american crap that will be shown.
A nice tidy sum of 30 mil seems hardly sufficent to stop the 2 billion dollar bootleg industry world wide. Especialy that circumventing the technology costs pennies on the dollar of the cost of making it.
http://www.uwarfare.com the Best Seattle Counterstirke Community
... is NEVER release it! If it can be viewed, listened to,or read, it can be copied. End of story.
anti-"fair use" lab.
calling it fair use is a bit incorrect, since having purchased a copyrighted product, you ARE ENTITLED to use it any way you wish.
fair use is for people who haven't purchased it i.e. quoting small passages, using small clips of video/audio etc.
this is yet another way for the cartels to say "fu** you, you consumer piece of shi* a**hole".
i recall Carlin saying something similar in one of his performances.
get the word out about what the MPAA/RIAA really are, not that suing poor families selectively isn't doing the same thing.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
I have to say that at least this approach is fairer than just picking people arbitrarily and interfering with their life to set an example. Generally speaking, culture in most countries doesn't have a big taboo on copying media, even if it's a ertail product. If they at least try to outsmart the public they're playing on a level field within the bounds of common law.
My likkle opinion.
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." -- Albert Einstein
For one person, paying $5-10 to see a flick isn't a big deal. It's a tad painful to fork over another $10 for a popcorn and soda, but it's not extremely bothersome.
For a family, two adults, say two children, you're looking at $30 in tickets, probably another $40-50 on popcorn and soda and such (inflated movie house prices). Suddenly a night at the movies for a family costs nearly $100 (considering gas prices).
Or they can rent a movie for $3-4 and watch it at home, on probably a better sound system and better picture quality, without having to deal with sticky floors and screaming infants (other people's, at least) and a bunch of bastards talking on their cell phones.
Is it any surprise that movie attendance number for families have dropped sharply?
It's not about the single ticket price. It's about the total cost of viewing. It's just way too high and out of reach for the average family these days.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
MPAA,
If it can be viewed, It can be copied. What part of that don't you understand?
When did these two companies merge?
This anti Piracy lab of theres is a big waste of money.
how about spending the $30 million developing a few scripts that don't suck ass?
The anti pircay technologies do not protect against somebody playing a video and having the dvd player connected to a tv input card. I have had no problems doing it this way.
Movie studios love piracy. It's not seriously cutting into their profits, and it gives them an excuse for poor sales.
Ask any movie executive why Gigli failed financially, and they'll tell you it was piracy. Same with House of the Dead or Deuce Bigalow. "Oh, everybody 'downloaded' it before it even hit theatres. Damn shame. We didn't even have enough money to pay the carpenters, set designers, makeup people, caterers... actually, the only people who got paid were me, the star and the director. Isn't that funny. Man, I wanna get those crooks."
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
I'm looking forward to hearing about how some group of crackers getting a rootkit on a server at that lab and manipulating all the projects....
You're not supposed tell them that! Sheesh. Next, someone will tell the RIAA about cassette tapes!
Seriously, though, the MPAA and the RIAA are trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle. It just can't be done. The worst they can do is make life more difficult for their paying customers, which they do, regularly. CD copy protection, DVD region codes, Macrovision, iTunes DRM, DivX (snicker)... all of that garbage only pisses off the poor suckers who actually pay money for movies and music. Wonderful business model, isn't it?
Just came out too...Some movie called "Corpse Bride"
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
There's one big idea I'll bet is on the lab's list of things not to research: "Make movies people want to watch, and distribute them the way customers want to get them at prices customers want to pay.".
The easiest way to combat piracy is not coming up with new copy-protection schemes, but coming up with a decent business model that takes away the incentive and makes it easy to legally purchase / rent movies online. I know if I could subscribe to a service to download current TV series for say $20/month, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And I'd wager I'm not the only one.
But money gives you another advantage - Power.
Power is what all humans want, but most can do without it. Except 'Them': RIAA, MPAA, Bill Gates and the others.
So what happens, if we have no scarcity? If everyone's physical needs are satisfied?
When there's no scarcity, Market Economy falls apart. And with it goes money and Power.
You can't control anyone without an economy.
Unless you have control over the Designs: you can create artificial scarcity - and have Power over others.
And this is what they are doing today: ingraining artificial scarcity in everyone's heads and our laws. They are not fools - they think ahead. They anticipate the future.
All we see is Mp3s and Movies - smoke and mirrors. They are not taking away your rights, they are taking away your future.
i saw LotR:Return of the King in the Philippines and saw exactly what you just described: a serial number in the upper right hand corner throughout the entire movie
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, if ticket prices truly were based on costs
Who says movie tickets should be based on cost? Movie tickets should be no different than any other element in a free market - and that is, "what the market will bear." I think it's perfectly OK for people to point out that the current cost of a movie ticket is a major impetus behind seeking alternatives, but ultimately, the best thing one can do is take their money and WALK, leaving both the tickets, AND the movies behind. Let the MPAA sort it out.
Ran into a perfect example of this concept in operation yesterday. Heard a song on a commercial that I liked. The company had a link to the site that had the song.
I would've had to download their special player and set up an account, just to download one song. Screw that, there's no way. If I could've gone somewhere and downloaded a high res copy for .50-.75 cents that would play on my Linux box, I would have done it. But all the hoops I'd have to go through, forget it.
Getting tough didn't work, getting tougher isn't going to work any better.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I haven't even ripped one in a long time. The last few movies I've rented were so bad I didn't even watch them all the way through let alone copy them. I don't go to the theatre any more since I can't stand spending $20 (for two) to watch a turd.
Copyrights mean that it isn't, and can never be, a free market. When copyrights are gone, THEN you can let the invisible hand do its' thing.
Burn every film yet to be made???
I was a stand-in during the Mexican leg of shooting Troy (a Bad Movie, by the way), and there were a few things I noticed:
:-)
1. There were tons of people getting paid tons of money to squirt makeup on the extras.
2. More food got thrown out than I've even seen.
3. They ALL use more paper towels than they should.
4. Nobody has any idea about anything in the natural world, and the powerful people don't like you unless you're afraid of them, which I was not.
So I tend to agree with the "Hollywood is greedy" thing. Because it's true. And the movie would NOT have been made if there weren't thousands of glory whore Little People for them to exploit.
It was sick and disgusting. People would do some photo doubling and all of a sudden think they were Jesus or something.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
The problem is this:
Analytical consumers always assume they're being charged relative to the cost of production or entertainment value, while in reality business will charge *whatever they can get away with*.
Don't act so surprised when you compare the cost of movie production/tickets 20 years ago to the cost of both today, and see the differences not really stacking up to support the theory that monetary inflation and consumer costs go hand in hand over time. We live in a society that rewards greed. Part of this is why people pirate in the first place; they don't want to contribute to that, but feel they should still have access to the media in question.
The primary point is: as long as you keep buying tickets at the theaters, things aren't going to change. People have started listening to that advice, and the advent of accessible piracy is not the cause of the slow declines in these industries but merely a consequential and inconveniently timed new technology. We're headed for a consumer culture that threatens to trap us into being living, breathing revenue-generators for capitalistic pigs, so decide what side you want to support because obviously the figureheads behind these corporations will cause your average pirating consumer a lot of trouble in the future.
Personally I don't feel confortable fighting to support a few individuals greed and collection of other peoples money.
The more you tighten your grip, ... the more paying customers will slip through your fingers.
I don't get it. You still have producers and consumers. Producers offer their wares at a given price, and if you think it's too much, you wave them good-bye and look for something else. You might not get *the* song you're after, but the same applies to other market segments.
There are still some decent movies out there, but there are a ton of good DVDs to watch at home.
Do I want to lookup a time, drive to the theater, look for parking, wait in line for tickets (which, inflation or not, were $3.50 when I was in college less than 6 years ago), wait in line for osme stale popcorn, then try and find seats for all my friends and I, THEN suffer through some commericials, and then see a movie I may or may not enjoy.
Screw that; now I call my friends, say I'm having movie night, and they all come over. Why? For less than $1600, I've got a put together a home theater setup with 6.1 thx surround sound and a widescreen 96" DLP projector that blows everyone away who sees it. Sure, it's only EDTV, but it's also a fraction of the price, and there isn't anyone who hasn't seen it that doesn't love it.
And, if the movie blows, I can turn it off 30 minutes into it, I've only lost the cost of a rental, and we can jsut watch Super Troopers for the 17th time instead (or another movie, cause I usually have more than one option)
So, for the price of going to a moive for myself and 5 or 6 of my closest friends, I can BUY the DVD (or better yet netflix), a bottle of rum, a case of Coke, have some homemade snakcs/popcorn that taste way better than at the theater, and not have to even worry about parking or driving to the theater.
And afterward, I can through in a playstation game and play stuff in near life-size, or throw in some pr0n, depending on the crowd (granted, in 96" it can be kinda scary!)
Let me giess. The Lab will employ one IT specialist and 400 laywers.
Basically stated, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This means with whatever new technology we come out with to combat piracy, someone's going to successfully reverse-engineer it, or circumvent it altogether.
Why won't they just give it up?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If they did effectively police themselves, then how would they leverage the issue in other areas?
For instance, a probable quote would be: "Congress needs to increase the lifetime of copyrights because rampant piracy is reducing the potential reward for publishing a body of work. That increase would offset the expected loss suffered due to current piracy rates."
More importantly, if it is accepted that rampant piracy exists, then the studios can continue fleecing the artists all while blaming some third party.
Of course, that last one is hypothetical, because we've never heard of a studio fleecing the artists they represent. </sarcasm>
AC: there has never ever been a movie that made a true profit
Red Flayer: Your post makes no sense, but I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
Believe these:
2. Stop policing movie theatres with security guards and confiscating mobile phones as potential "recording equipment" and creating customer antipathy.
There's a legitimate reason to require customers on the theater's private property to deposit all phones in lockers: If it's in a locker, it can't ring or "chainsaw ring" in the screening rooms.
If it can be viewed, then it can be pirated.
This might kill the movie theatres, especially the low cost 3rd run ones that don't show a movie until it has been out for 3 months, as they will be showing the movie while it is already out in DVD.
At $2.00 a ticket, a couple can see a movie for the same price as a new-release DVD rental. Moving the DVD release window closer to the theatrical release might kill the market for G or PG films in later-run theaters, where you might on average have a family of four, but not as much for PG-13 or R films, where singles or couples make up much of the audience.
and Disney did it so they could show more of there good side to the public by having an in in the media.
Didn't Disney already have an "in" in the media?
Only cause I've got the same setup ;) And I agree
make people pay for it but then don't allow them access to it.
If you can see it, so can a camera.
If you can hear it, so can a mic.
I grew up with what is now considered low res. But even today the low res input devices are likely better than that...
So where can I pick up my 30 million USD?
Aren't they a little late to be researching anti-camera devices, when we just saw one a whole day ago?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
"If Hollywood would adopt some of the business model of the porn industry they would see a marked improvement in profits."
LoTR done with nude actors and heavy breathing. Watch dwarves get jiggly with it. That ring isn't on a finger.
The main advantage porn has over all other entertainment is that it's main customers are hostages to their libidos. "Just say No!", doesn't apply to porn. Now if the rest of the entertainment industry could latch onto something that instinctual? Then yeah your comparison would be valid. But then again, you all would be complaining about how the content providers are manipulating you in order to get you to buy their product (no one ever accuses the porn industry of manipulation)
He seems to share your same sentiment
"I've got a way for them to stop piracy. It's called not overpricing your product."
Excuse #413
They're charging too much...for stuff that hasn't even been released.
Excuse #414
Copyright is too long...even on stuff that hasn't even been released.
Excuse #415
They're taking away my fair use rights...even on stuff that hasn't been released.
Excuse #416
I don't believe in IP...even on stuff that IP is a moot point since...it hasn't been released yet.
Excuse #417
If they only produce quality...as demonstrated by something that...hasn't been released yet.
Excuse #418
If they would only give it away, and sell services...WTF!?
Words matter. When you call this stuff anti-piracy you're already surrendering the high ground to MPAA.
Please, if you're going to talk about this stuff, why not 'so-called anti-piracy', which is true, or, better yet, 'anti-fair-use'
thanks
ron
There is already a anti piracy technique that is about fool proof:
"just keep making crappy movies"
Seems to be working.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They sure have a lot of money to throw out at ideas.
Keep making awesome movies like Stealth, Fantastic Four and I, Robot. Oh and don't forget to remake the second Bad News Bears treat. People will be soo riveted in their seats they'll forget to tape the movie...
They need a Good Ideas lab... The Doby Gillis Movie, LoveBoat 2006 and Rockford Files Forever movies won't get made until hollywood asks AWESOM-O's help...
So I went and saw Lord of War Monday night after hearing good reviews. Well I walked in with 2 friends after paying $9.50 each to see 2 other people in the 177 capacity thearte. I know they charge 50 cents more on weekends, but if they thought about it and charged...lets say $6 on Monday and Tuesday nights, they'd probably do better than 5 people at a 9:30 showing. From a business end, I'm shocked that places like Loews don't look to maximize their overall profits (in a positive way - not over pricing).
11.52 US, around $15 AU regular movie price.
which is insane, when I pay about the same price to OWN it on dvd and watch as many times as I like! (~$30 AU if i want it straight away) All that you're paying for is the privelege to watch it first, and to watch it in a theatre. Where you most often have to sit through them giving you a lecture on you "stealing" "their" movies, and about 10 minutes of advertising.
I have a decent home theatre setup (sans huge screen tv) at home, and most movies these days aren't good enough to warrant the money of seeing them at the cinema first and having to put up with all the aforementioned crap.
I think I've seen about 2 movies at the cinema this year, and I'm an avid movie goer. Those were Sin City and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
These days I just can't be bothered going to the cinema when a better experience is offered in my own home.
IE: make better movies and be more cost effective, then I might "go back" to the cinemas.
Build a better mousetrap, and you get a better mouse.
I have to add him to my foe list. :)
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
... on an episode of Geeks in Space, and I still quote it every single time this topic comes up in conversation:
"If you can decrypt it to play it, you can decrypt it to rip it."
Please let me know if there are any new developments. Meanwhile, I don't need an article to know that Hollywood's gonna continue to try anyway.
pants
I can see the next summer's movie releases:
-shrek 3: Shrek get scorned again
-I dream of Jeannie starring Will Ferrell and Cameron Diaz
-The Oriental Express: A CG Movie with mo-cap from Tim Robbins
-Batman begins again
-War of the Worlds 2: Revenge of the martains (but wait! they died... yes, I know)
-Star Trek Enterprise: Borg encounter (aka, bill gates cameo)
-Trek of the Elephants, as told by James Earl Jones.
And... last, but not least, iPod: the movie.
(I stayed away from making cracks at Harry potter on purpose.)
I think you all know my opinion about it. They've just developed the incrackable piracy prevention tool. Movies that no one would want to watch...
> There are thousands of new concepts
THOUSANDS of new concepts? Yeah right.
www.blueapples.org
It's a common misconception that prices are based on production costs. It is not just the movie industry, all sellers attempt to set prices at the highest point the market will bear while maximizing profits (set it too high, and too few units sell, too low and you lose potential profits). Basically, the idea is to set the price based on how much your target customer wants the product and is able to pay, regardless of how much it cost to produce (obviously, if it costs more to produce than what can be gained by selling at a tollerable market price, it is unprofitable, and foolish to produce for any reasons other than artistic). If there weren't so many people willing to pay $8.50 or more for a ticket to a crappy movie, ticket prices generally would drop (since Hollywood movies, generally, fall into the crappy category) as studios and theaters attempted to attract more customers.
If you notice, most theaters specializing in indie flicks charge lower ticket prices than a mainstream theater in the same area (that has always been my observation, at any rate). However, they're not just "nicer" and less "corporate" than the major theaters (not for their pricing, anyway). They're trying to maximize profits, just like their mainstream breathren. It's just that they generally have a smaller market, and the ballance between price and attendence that maximizes their profits is lower.
This principle is very simple, and operates as follows: perhaps the mainstream theater could get more attendence if it dropped prices my $0.50, but the increased attendence wouldn't make up for the per-ticket profit loss. On the other hand, they could raise prices by $0.50, thereby increasing per-ticket profits, but the increase wouldn't compensate for the loss of attendence. The idea is to find a balance. Same principles apply for the indie theaters.
If American interrest in indie flicks suddenly surged, you'd see a corresponding price increase at your local indie theater.
For most indie movies, it's a matter of the theater deciding to carry a low-budget movie that will attrack fewer patrons at a lower price, vs. a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster that will draw in the crowds at a high price. Call it greed if you will, but these companies exist purely to make a profit (that being separate from the artistic goals of some of their employees). The only time a mainstream theater will show an indie flick is if they believe they can make at least as much in ticket profits as with any of the other movies they could potentially show in its place.
In other words, if you don't like the price of something, take it illegally instead. It's not your fault for breaking the law, it's someone else's fault for pricing it wrong. After all, Slashdot posters have a god-given right to DEMAND how anyone else does business.
... If you don't like the price of something, don't buy it. ...
Precisely. This is exactly why I fail to understand why this is story is classified under "Your Rights Online." You might not like the prices of movies or music, but guess what? If you don't like the prices, or if you don't like that the RIAA or MPAA won't let you redistribute copies of their material, no one is forcing you to buy it. But just for fun, let's see what it would be like if we extended this idea of the dictator consumer to the rest of the economy:
Suppose you are looking for a new apartment to rent. You have already decided what you want. You want to install your hot tub in the living room, and you won't pay more than $50/mo. You set an appointment with the landlord of an apartment you are interested in. When you arrive, he/she shows you around the apartment.
Landlord: And here is the living room.
You: Now, if I moved in this weekend, would it be alright if I installed my hot tub on Sunday?
Landlord: What hot tub?
You: I want to install a hot tub. And what's this with this three digit monthly rent I see you hiding behind your back. You know that I demand no more than $50 per month.
Landlord: Uh, I'm sorry, but I can't allow you to install it. It violates my rental agreement. And I've already told you that the rent is $200/mo or best offer.
You: But it is my *right* to install a hot tub! I will be living in this living room, and living rooms must be free as in freedom! And how dare you charge a rent above my arbitrary price range!
Landlord: Actually, I own the living room because I invested in it, and if you want to live here you have to abide by the agreement. Otherwise, you'll have to go find another living room that is "free as in freedom."
You: Hah! You will be hearing shortly from the lawyers at the Living Room Frontier Foundation!
You storm out of the room, and submit a story to Slashdot under the Your Rights in the Hot Tub section, criticizing the Landlord for installing Power Rights Management (an electricity meter) in his apartments to make sure that people aren't installing power sucking devices like hot tubs.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
While I see (I hope) what you're trying to say and I even agree, I have to poke into your argument (I'm curious):
While we may and must call the deal between one drsquare and one landlord as "agreement" what do we call it when (almost) all the landlors form a "coalition" and all of them enforce very similar "rules" which are ... say ... more in favor of landlords?
With such "coalition" there is very small amount of better (for drsquare) offers from landlords which are not in "coalition" thus majority of drsquare-s of the world are unable to get "decent agreement".
IMO in such case it is logical that drsquare-s form their own "coalition" too and start "the war" with "the coalition of landlords". And wars tend to have quite different and sometimes bizzare-whatever rusel. And while the landlords started it ...
While I do not like wars I for sure will at least try to fight if someone attacks me. So maybe that's the rationale behing this "Your rights online" and "MPAA/RIAA/..." thing?
hany
Knowing what a Bangalorian doesn't is an excellent place to start. Thats why I left my job programming for a large defense contractor to come here to Bangalore and see what the hubbub is all about. 6 months after starting a web development group here, I can tell what skills are necessary for American programmers to develop to ensure that they won't lose their jobs to outsourcing. And the solution isn't to "learn to live on $5 per day" as so many on slashdot seem to think. The solution is to figure out what strengths you can offer that someone in Bangalore can't. Then market yourself in those strengths. Simple, proven, effective.
For an American programmer to be paid $60k/year for what an Indian is willing to do for $8k/year...
Choose your poison, you can't have it both ways...
That's right. It's me, DR, the enemy of copyrights. But I have to admit, this is finally a good move for the industry. It's a lost battle but the money is not wasted. Trying to preserve your sandwich for a little longer makes sense, while you can think of alternative ways to profit from your work. I'm afraid this might not really be the motive, but rather some strategy to keep signing on artists for more exclusive distribution rights. But still you have to applaud the effort.
Here's an idea......stop paying the MPAA based movie companies the supposed overinflated [ticket & DVD] prices for movies and they'll be forced to lower the price, or fall by the wayside.
It's actually fairly simple.
I think that most Piracy is done simply because the pirates enjoy it. they don't care that much about what they're stealing, they're just interested in the thrill of the act itself. Therefore regardless of what you do, short of making all media "Free as in Beer" there will always be people that are going to try to counter it, and they will find a way to do exactly that. For every action there is a reaction, for every lock there is a key and for every security measure there is a hacker with plenty of free time on their hands. they should use that 30m to research ways to make their product(s)cheaper and increase their margins so they can try to gain back some of the supposed money they are losing due to piracy.
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
good point, i hadn't thought of that. that's a practical reason why different pricing for different movies wouldn't work out so well.