The Pirate Bay, Featured in Vanity Fair

koregaonpark writes "Via the TorrentFreak site, an article in the latest issue of Vanity Fair about BitTorrent, movie piracy and The Pirate Bay. The Vanity Fair piece is lengthy, and covers the MPAA's struggle to stamp out piracy, Hollywood's increasing losses, and how the 'heartfelt testimony of Ben Affleck, a man who was paid $12.5 million to star in Gigli,' didn't help one bit. 'Pirates of the Multiplex' covers the saga of Pirate Bay in a very high-level, mass-market fashion. Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?"

Comments

You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[dada21]

I appreciate this article because it shows common sense in how the market of distribution operates. Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie? But that isn't the key element of why "piracy" is good for the market of art creation -- "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful.

Regardless of what the State tries to do to create monopolies using force, you can't stop the commoditizing of a product. In the case of copyright, the commoditizing isn't the actual movie or song, but the distribution system. For the first few thousand years or so of writing on paper, the distribution mechanism was a tiny industry of copy-writers. Most villages had one Bible as their own written word, and it stayed this way for generations. The printing press blew open the door for people getting their ideas out -- that is all it was about. People wrote to increase their power to attract an audience to pay them for their knowledge. Shakespeare's money didn't come from bookmaking, but from attracting others to his plays. His name was strong because of the press, but his money came from his repeat labor of continuing his work throughout his life. Can you imagine if Shakespeare had copyright to protect his first book, and never returned to the writing desk to continue writing? That's sort of what we're seeing today with the implementation of ridiculous copyright laws -- forced monopolies that give the distribution system more power than the author or the actor.

After 100 years of copyright really dooming the amateur and the new content creators to obscurity, we're finally seeing distribution move from a coerced monopoly to the masses. We're moving to the day that everyone will have a level playing field in terms of their ability to market their product to the masses -- but no one will be able to "get rich quick" with only a few months or a year of hard work -- if you want continued success, you will have to continue to work. This is how income has always existed -- you work, you find a market/customer, you get paid, you continue to work and the cycle repeats. Copyright has destroyed that cycle for the top tier elite, and thankfully The Pirate Bay and the Internet at large is destroying that State-perversion of the market so we all can have access to the system of distribution -- if we work hard at marketing our product.

I can't wait to see what happens to the current distribution systems as our preteens and teens hit their 30s and 40s. They've grown up around knowing that information is readily available freely. For a short period of time, artists and producers may get harmed by this fact -- they will see much of their work copied freely without reimbursement. But this means we'll see more artists and producers moving to a repeat-labor market where they work for their dollar -- more concerts, more plays/live productions, more face-time with their fans, etc. You can copy the new Fall Out Boy album for free, but their concerts will cost you $30-$50 a ticket. Why? Because these famous, popular musicians have the opportunity to provide their customers with a unique experience, and the supply of this particular artist does not meet the demand for them -- the price goes up. This is a GOOD THING.

I'm paying $180 to see Prince in Vegas in March. We love seeing him play live. He made a good decision to go around Universal and the rest of the collusive monopolists in the distribution market -- he plays lives twice a week at his club. He sells it out. Good for him. I see Matthew Broderick and David Hasselhoff have embraced this market too -- instead of just making movies, now they act live in musicals and theater productions -- commanding high ticket prices for the truly scarce product. As I've said before, an artist might spend 3-6 months creating something new and unique, and they hope to make money on it forever without more work. A plumber might spend 3-6 months learning a new task to fix a bathroom sink, but the

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[dada21]

Good luck creating the equivalent of "live performances" for TV shows, Movies, games, and animation.

Many games already have moved away from the "buy once" mentality -- subscriptions to multiplayer online games are the true source of income for the more popular games. As time progresses, I think we'll see more value-added items that people will be willing to pay for in terms of why they would pay for a game rather than "steal" it. One reason to purchase a product is for the physical items that entice people to buy the real deal -- Ultima always had maps and books that were interesting. Sure, the pirated versions had these in digital format, but the real fans (and the amateur fans) were happy to buy the real version to acquire these tokens. Also, as piracy is accepted rather than disparaged, people who like a given game and want to see a future one made will support the game in order to promote the idea that they want more of the same in the future -- this is already happening.

TV shows already have secondary markets for the stars -- how many stars of TV shows do you know that are doing theater productions and musicals? How many shows have fans behind them that want the show to continue but the show was canceled because the distribution company said so? Firefly comes to mind, as do many other shows. The fans will eventually be the financial producers of shows after the initial pilot and episodes are made. If fans want the show to continue, they'll purchase subscriptions that finance future shows. Cable TV currently limits this ability, but as everything moves to VoD, I believe this will be a viable alternative. The same is true for Anime, a market which was NOTHING until "piracy" saved it and brought Anime interest in the market. Do you think that Anime/Manga would exist if not for the huge black market in the US for the first few years? Now there is a growing market that exists WITHOUT big distributors enabling it to exist and blossom -- fans pay for what fans want to see more of.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[tomstdenis]

What I hate though is that any media endeavour that doesn't make money is automatically the victim of piracy.

Maybe studios lose money because they're so f'ing out of touch with reality that people are entertaining themselves on their own terms.

Instead of paying $20 for a whole album where I only want select tunes, I'll use P2P. Then pops up itunes, which last I checked WAS MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. Maybe the studios should take a hint. Just because an artist slings together a couple good tracks doesn't mean you can cram with it 50 mins of filler and call it an album.

As for TV, most shows on TV are either shite or derivative shite [CSI, CSI NY, CSI MIAMI, CSI OKLAHOMA, CSI Alaska, etc...]. I get that they're trying to make the most amount of money without actually doing work, but sometimes that doesn't work.

Tom

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[Microlith]

Pro-piracy arguments always seem to fall on their face for me because they seem to imply that the "fans" exist before the show does. Yet how many times have I read on this site alone that people would never have bought the show if they hadn't seen it before hand, and would never buy a show without seeing it first.

Without copyright you'll never see a show made without it being bought and paid for before production. Who knows what you'll get?

a market which was NOTHING until "piracy" saved it and brought Anime interest in the market. Do you think that Anime/Manga would exist if not for the huge black market in the US for the first few years? Now there is a growing market that exists WITHOUT big distributors enabling it to exist and blossom -- fans pay for what fans want to see more of.

I've heard this argument before and I still think it's a load of crap. The people who download anime freely are most often those who are least likely to buy it. People forget that there was huge, HUGE interest generated after Bandai and Pioneer (now Geneon) on Cartoon Network. Far more than the mediocre audience garnered by digisubs in 2000. In fact I'll wager the reverse was true, all the digisub groups experienced an explosion in popularity once people realized they could go on and download it without having to pay for it at all.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[shark72]

"Instead of paying $20 for a whole album where I only want select tunes, I'll use P2P."

The mythical $20 album always pops up on these sorts of discussions. If your belief that albums cost $20 is driving your use of P2P, check your assumptions. New CD releases average less than $14 now. $20 will get you a special CD, with an extra DVD or some other value-add goodie. If you don't want the fancy $20 special edition, you can buy the $14 one. No need to be driven to P2P.

"Then pops up itunes, which last I checked WAS MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. Maybe the studios should take a hint. Just because an artist slings together a couple good tracks doesn't mean you can cram with it 50 mins of filler and call it an album."

If the iTunes store is making money, then the labels are, too. Either way, it's been a perpetual fact that bad artists will put out albums with just a few good tracks; the phrase "one hit wonder" isn't unique to the 21st century, the 90s, or even the 80s. If you've been burned by this and thus you feel that you need to resort to P2P, just do a little more research before you buy. I tend to buy my music a track at a time, but when I do buy a CD's worth, it's an informed decision that I don't regret. Either way, the top pirated songs (as tracked by BigChampagne) tends to match up with the top ten in airplay and legal sales, so it appears that pirates have the same healthy appreciation for crap as the rest of the populace.

"As for TV, most shows on TV are either shite or derivative shite [CSI, CSI NY, CSI MIAMI, CSI OKLAHOMA, CSI Alaska, etc...]. I get that they're trying to make the most amount of money without actually doing work, but sometimes that doesn't work."

The "90% of everything is crap" rule applies to TV, too. There was plenty of awful TV in the 60's and 70's, too. I presume the argument here is that since TV is so bad, people are opting to pirate it instead of pay for it. I take another approach: I don't watch TV. Don't even own a receiver. Those few shows I do want to watch, I catch on iTunes.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[multipartmixed]

> Either way, it's been a perpetual fact that bad artists will put
> out albums with just a few good tracks; the phrase "one hit wonder"
> isn't unique to the 21st century

There are two problems with this statement:

1. Just because an artist does not release only "good" material does not make them bad
2. The absense of cassette and 45 singles IS certainly a 21st-Century phenomenon.
      The MAFIAA could certainly sell 3.5 CD singles at a reduced rate if they so chose.
      Making OHWs available ONLY on $15 albums means they're effectively charging $15/song.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[drinkypoo]

If you don't want the fancy $20 special edition, you can buy the $14 one. No need to be driven to P2P.

What if I want two songs, without DRM? I'm not paying $7 a song just because $10 a song was too much. And I'm not going to deal with the automatic reduction of quality inherent in backing up a song purchased from iTunes.

It would be better for the artist if I just downloaded their songs and then went to see them in concert.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[shark72]

"Composing and performing are two different things. People make music they don't perform. Your example, when extended to programming, would mean programmers shouldn't get paid for coming up with a useful program, but rather for the act of re-typing the code for others' amusement."

I think the standard argument here is that if a composer or musician can't or won't perform live, then they're not real musicians, and thus don't deserve the money. This is, of course, complete horseshit; my library is filled with lots of music by very talented people who, for whatever reason, rarely if ever go on tour.

Another common argument is that they'll send money to the artist (the other people who worked on the album and whose ongoing employment depends on the CDs success can go fuck themselves, I guess) and then buy a t-shirt. Of my friends who actively pirate music, I have not once ever seen them wear a t-shirt extolling the virtues of some band.

"Someone making techno in his basement will never see a fucking dime via your logic."

I think deep down, many people just want musicians to accept their new place in society -- a place that's a notch below programmers, IT people, etc. on the social and economic ladder. We have the technology -- the P2P apps and so on -- and there's more of us than there are of them. Notice that lots of the arguments are on the order of "musicians should just stop being so greedy and learn to make do with less?" That's a bit like what our ancestors said to the American Indians, and our ancestors also had the technology to make it happen.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[Em Adespoton]

a market which was NOTHING until "piracy" saved it and brought Anime interest in the market. Do you think that Anime/Manga would exist if not for the huge black market in the US for the first few years? Now there is a growing market that exists WITHOUT big distributors enabling it to exist and blossom -- fans pay for what fans want to see more of.

I've heard this argument before and I still think it's a load of crap. The people who download anime freely are most often those who are least likely to buy it. People forget that there was huge, HUGE interest generated after Bandai and Pioneer (now Geneon) on Cartoon Network. Far more than the mediocre audience garnered by digisubs in 2000. In fact I'll wager the reverse was true, all the digisub groups experienced an explosion in popularity once people realized they could go on and download it without having to pay for it at all.

Actually, I think these two opposing arguments point out something interesting: when produced for an original audience, copyright-backed protection fosters investment. In the case of Anime, this applies to Japan as the original audience. Those investing want to recoup their losses in that market, and if they don't, they will fold up shop and go home.

However, the US is known internationally as a mass media dumper -- losses are recouped at home, and any sales abroad are pure profit, minus distribution costs (which are often picked up by foreign interests).

In THIS market, copyright is a hindrance, since the content is already created. This is similar to Anime being subbed and distributed in the US in the late 90's. If it had been sold directly from Japan to the US market, it would have bombed. However, as the cost was 0, the profit was already made, distribution-by-piracy actually increased the interest in the shows to the point where the US is now becoming part of the primary market for Anime.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[TheRaven64]

Do you know how TV shows get made now? Someone makes a pilot (typically with low production values) with their own money and pitches it to a studio. If the studio likes it, they will fund it.

A few studios have started releasing some of these pilots on YouTube and funding the ones that get a lot of views. There is no reason why this kind of practice couldn't be institutionalised; put up a video and let people pledge a few dollars if production went ahead. If enough people do, then charge them, use the money to produce the series and then release it into the public domain. Series two should be easier to fund, since there will already be a large fan base (assuming series one was any good).

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I thought copyright has been around a lot longer than just a hundred years.

I don't know of anyone that's started out in any industry that's trying to have a perpetual livable income from just one work. Maybe Stephen King, John Grisham, etc. have enough to live on without writing more books, however, they still continue to write. I really can't think of anyone that is trying to make a living on just one work, so I really don't get your claim on that. Maybe the naive people think that.

I don't understand how one individual or company's copyright ownership of one work prevents another individual or company from making their own work. Instead, there are plenty of competing books, movies and CDs on nearly any topic or genre.

I have a very hard time jusifying paying as much as you are for a couple hour's worth of entertainment. I know a fan of Celene Dion and she said she was thinking of going to her Vegas concert, but then realized how many CDs that can buy. My impression is that live performances is not a good way of supporting oneself. I don't think they only get a very tiny cut of the ticket sales. Living "on the road" is a very tough life in my opinion, and I really can't support the suggestion that's the only good way that a musicians should make their money because of that.

I think one big counterpoint is that most of the SE Asian countries do not have anything you would call a domestic movie industry. There's no reason for anyone to bother funding a movies in those countries if they are going to be ripped off by the corner vendors selling the movie for less than $1 a piece. I certainly am not able to go to say, Malaysia to watch a Malaysian play, and plays aren't really my thing anyway.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[cpt kangarooski]

Of course, Shakespeare died in 1616, and the first English copyright laws that had anything to do with authors (as opposed to stationer's copyrights which had more to do with publishers and censorship) didn't arise until 1710. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that there were perpetual copyrights as a fairly ordinary matter. So before you point out the mote in the previous poster's eye, perhaps you should attend to the beam in your own?

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[Solandri]

Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie?

Actually that's exactly what I would do. The studios claim the DVD is a license (to view the movie as often as I wish in private), not a physical product (which I could copy or distribute as I wish). But if my daughter were to destroy the physical DVD and I try to get a replacement, suddenly they claim the DVD is a physical product and I must purchase another copy to replace the broken one; the fact that I already paid for a license to view the movie doesn't matter. Which is it? A license or a physical product? No answer? Then of course I'm going to copy every DVD I buy (using a tool they've managed to outlaw as illegal) and only use the copies for viewing while the originals are kept safe from the destructive hands of little children.

The software industry got this right. If you buy a piece of software, you get a license to the software. If you destroy the CD (or DVD), most software companies will send you replacements if you can prove your original purchase. If they ever upgrade the software, they recognize that you've already paid for a license and sell you the upgrade for less than a new copy. I suspect the reason they got it right is because the software industry is populated by people who think logically and reasonably. They treat me fairly, so I gladly pay for the software I use.

Contrast this with the entertainment industry. If you buy a movie/song, you get a license to view/hear the song. If you destroy the CD (or DVD) they require you to buy a new license at full price. If they ever upgrade the movie/song (new media format or an extended release), they require you to buy a new license at full price. This is called trying to have your cake and eat it too. I suspect the reason the entertainment industry does things this way is because it is populated by people who try to screw everyone (even their own artists) out of every dollar they can. Excuse me for not shedding a tear for the woes of such people.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[jedidiah]

Sure. Eventually.

That's how literature works. If you have a problem with that then you shouldn't be a writer.

Have you given Sophocles his cut? Or did you have the absurd notion that it was all your own original work?

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[Lumpy]

I think deep down, many people just want musicians to accept their new place in society -- a place that's a notch below programmers, IT people, etc. on the social and economic ladder.

Huh?? they always have been that way. Before 1920 musicians were roving poor with the incredibly rare composer that was rich only because he was fancied by the rich that threw money at him.

Musicians being rich spoiled brats is a strange happening in history and they are simply getting reverted back to what they were less than 100 Years ago.

They were looked down upon by the upper class through most of history and were equals of the working man.

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[dwandy]

If they ever upgrade the software, they recognize that you've already paid for a license and sell you the upgrade for less than a new copy.

so I should get a discount on Balboa since I paid to see Rocky?
Oh wait, you said "upgrade".

Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item

[MightyYar]

God forbid people stopped watching TV and they couldn't afford to make TV shows. Not to mention big-budget movies with $15 million paid just to the star. The human condition would really suffer. Honestly I don't know how people coped prior to movies and TV.

</sarcasm>

One of my favorite movies, "In the Company of Men", was filmed for $25,000. Somehow, I think that the art of movie making would endure even if the DVD market completely went away. Music was created long before copyright, and will continue to be produced well after our civilization fails. Television? It is going to have to evolve into an on-demand medium at some point, I think. The broadcast model will slowly become a niche. People will always pay some premium to see something first - the latest episode of a show, a live sports feed, the news. That HBO has managed to thrive even with all of the "free" TV out there supports this notion.

Don't let the pirates get you down - change can be bad, but it can also be good.

oblig.

[Rob T Firefly]

I don't feel like buying the magazine, anyone have a .torrent?

Ben Affleck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm sure Ben Affleck is eating TV dinners because of Pirates Bay. I wish someone would smack that arrogant jack ass.

Re:Ben Affleck

[linzeal]

TV dinners cost more than normal food. I never understood why poor and unemployed people would use their food stamps on that crap when you can make a cheese pizza yourself for 2-3 bucks and don't even get me started on Salisbury steak, shudder.

When I was hard up for cash I always ate better than when I had cash because I had the time to cook. I figure when I am rich one day maybe I will eat better again, but working and going to school have made me eat some of the worst food ever.

Re:Ben Affleck

[jctull]

Maybe there is a correlation between eating TV dinners and being lazy...

Re:Ben Affleck

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well there is truth to the statement that a lot of good jobs are in the movie industry and that there are lots of people from construction, lighting, writing, catering etc that all benefit from film production.

The problem is.. Hollywood themselves do not support American film makers. Hollywood at any opportunity will move productions to Canada, and other foreign countries just to cut production costs (cheaper crews)

So Hollywoods own pr is bullshit in many respects. Theres definatly some truth to it though. I do think piracy hurts them... but not as much as they claim. For example I havent gone to the movies much at all this past year... It's not because i've been downloading dvds like a dope addict... cause i havent been. Its because they havent inspired me to get off my ass yet. Spiderman3 i'll go see, theres a few others i'm looking forward to, but overall the way they promote films turns me off. I dont want to really go see a film that i pretty got the story from the commercial. I want to explore films, find ones that are interesting, not be told that this is the funniest film of the year... and have it not be.

Consumers are smarter... thats all. They have more options when it comes to seeing a film and not paying for it... so they need to really be fair with consumers, lowering the ticket prices is a good start.

My friends girl, buys dvds constantly. I mean 200$ at a time. All legal of course. We think shes nuts.... "you can rent them and copy them we exclaim" :) But she loves to buy them. I'm a movie nut myself and she outspends me, and i consider her a more casual consumer of films.... cause she buys lots of crap :)

DVD sales have slowed dramatically though. Most analysts will say that the dvd days are done. The sales are bottomed and they're hoping for HD and Bluray to spark that massive dvd like buying trend that took place with dvds.... I dont know if people are that willing to buy another entire library of films they already own... Sure some films... but thats asking a lot form a consumer in a format war.

Its possible that the saving grace to film sales, will be technology... a constant upgrade in technology.... Soon uncompressed 4000x3000 resolution laser displays! Freddy Got Fingered will have never looked better! (i love that movie.. its brillant... i know.. shut up)

Re:Ben Affleck

[eln]

Try cooking when you work 3 jobs. The people buying the crappy TV dinners tend to be the working poor, not the sitting on their ass doing nothing poor.

Also, making a cheese pizza for 2-3 bucks is a poor choice when you can buy a TV dinner with all 4 food groups represented for $1.50.

Re:Ben Affleck

[Lumpy]

Are you insane???

A $1.99 Tv dinner costs way less than "real food". I suggest you go out and look at prices of "food" and then the prepackaged garbage they pass off as food in grocery stores. Low grade veggies are cheap like iceberg lettuce. But Romane lettuce costs $3.00 for a head. Everythign else and fruits all cost way more than bujying the prepacked garbage that is made from the grade D vegatable pieces and Meat and then breaded and deep fried to hide it's horrible taste while making it even worse for you.

Poor people have bad nutrition because the cheap food is bad for you. It is expensive to eat good veggies, meats,grains. A loaf of crap-white bread is $0.89US a loaf of good multigrain is $3.25.. do I buy the good for you food and we starve for the week, or do I buy 2 loafs of the cheap crap and 1 jar of cheap peanutbutter (more sugar than protien) and at least have enough to make it to the next paycheck.

I strongly suggest you get a reality dose on how the poor people really eat. Because you seem to not have a clue as to what is in most things and the costs of them. When you start digging into things like this you become horrified and then disgusted.... and dont even look at the chain fast food, that stuff will make you puke when you find out how horribly bad it is... There is a reason they can sell you a hamburger cooked and packaged for less than $1.00...

Re:Ben Affleck

[Hijacked Public]

A packet of Myoplex costs less than $1 if you buy them in bulk on EBay, and each packet contains about half of the USRDA of more vitamins and minerals than I care to count right now. They also have enough protein to do whatever job you need protein to do.

I'm not sure if many people have the discipline to eat them very often but they can be made to be pretty satisfying.

Re:Ben Affleck

[VJ42]

I hear and understand all of what you're saying, but without a positive mental attitude to go with that talent and luck (mostly luck, I agree) you're going to get nowhere. The biggest opportunity could land in your lap, but unless you have a decent attitude, you won't even notice it, let alone have the ability to take advantage of it.

I'm not American, but the phrase "the American dream" comes to mind; you can only live the dream if you try though. If you just sit back and think "I'm not ever going to do any better" you never will.

Re:Ben Affleck

[bogjobber]

5lb. bag of rice, 5lb. bag of beans, and some fruits/veggies. Cheap as hell and extremely easy/convenient to prepare a variety of different foods. People have enough time to make food. There are very few people anywhere that do not have 15 minutes to cook a simple meal. TV dinners really aren't that much of a time saver, and are expensive. More importantly, they are often absolutely horrible for you. Even fast food, when you take into account the time spent driving to/from the restaurant is not that much quicker than cooking.

I eat about 3-4 rice-based meals a week and it takes me a month to go through a ten pound bag which costs me $8. Stuff like beans, pasta, and fresh fruit and veggies are also extremely cheap and easy to cook.

Re:Ben Affleck

[Moofie]

If we got rid of copyright, the GPL would be redundant. And you also wouldn't need it.

I figured I might read something about it.

[Spazntwich]

But I thought it would be an article about Kiera Knightly's vagina, not copyright infringement.

Annoying pointlessly multi-page articles.

[Funkcikle]

Single page version.

Why on earth /. doesn't just link to these where available, I will never know...

Re:Annoying pointlessly multi-page articles.

[anonicon]

Why on earth /. doesn't just link to these where available, I will never know...

Because the users who submit the articles either don't know or don't care about the uni-page alternative when they're sending their story link in, and the editors are still coming down off last weekend's methamphetamine bender with a gaggle of prostitutes, a case of tequila, and a goat named Rhonda.

Answer: No.

[nherc]

What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND /.?

Bah

[Gerocrack]

I'm waiting for the article on Slashdot to come out in Cosmo.

Yes

[robably]

Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?

Yes, but I make lists of these things.

Neal Stephenson interviewed in Carpet Steaming News about his cat hair problem.
Jerry Garcia interviewed about curtains through a medium in Woman's Own.
Tony Blair interviewed about cheese through a trumpet in Lego Builders Weekly.
George W Bush interviewed upside-down from a flying carpet through a Chinese pipe in Hanglider's Review.

Actually, no. What a bloody stupid question.

Hollywoods increasing losses?

[stratjakt]

I read not too long ago the industry was making record profits.

Of course, the piece I read was in a business magazine, and seemed aimed at potential investors, not consumers.

Guess the message changes depending on who they're talking to.

I'll read about movies shattering box office records one day, and then read the sad, sad, tale of how Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Glazer "only" get 25% of the net from Da Vinci Code, instead of 40%, because it didn't make the box office they'd hoped and the studio wanted more bucks. This is all because of internet piracy, not because it's a shitty formulaic movie based on a shitty formulaic novel that many people were sick of hearing about.

I don't support pirating DVD rips, because IMO, unlike the RIAA, I actually think DVD's are priced fairly. They sell very well, as I'm told, and as far as I can see from anecdotal evidence: In our mall, the two music stores are gone - and a suncoast movie store just opened up, and another gamestop.

Whatever, they can whine about piracy and we can whine about how we feel justified in pirating, etc. Nothing is going to change, though. If the big studios cant compete they'll close down, and others will take their place.

No, that's the whole point...

[solevita]

Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?

The news would be pretty dull if I expected all of it. I guess that's why they call it "news".

bravo, well said

[circletimessquare]

i'd like to also add that the movie experience, the theatre, is still an experience people are willing to pay tickets for. in other words, the DVD aftermarket for movies is obsolete, exactly as you suggest. however, the movie house is not obsolete, as you suggest

forget the internet for a moment: television was supposed to kill cinema in the 1950s. why is it still alive? why did it in fact boom in growth after the 1950s?

psychologists have done studies showing that people actually subconsciously like the ooohs and aahs and laughs and startles of their fellow popcorn munchers at a movie. yes, a site like slashdot won't admit to the fact, but people apparently have an enhanced emotional experience in a packed theatre... subconciously

consciously they won't admit that fact. they will complain about babies and cell phones, but that's what a lot of people do: whine and bitch and moan... and still go to the movies. people whine about greenhouse gases and global warming, but they still get in their cars every day too. people whine. and then forget about it. cest la vie

look the experience of watching a first run movie at a giant screen surrounded by other people as emotionally enthralled as you. you've never seen it before. everyone else is anonymous to you, their reactions are real and honest. it's almost like church and you're a religious ecstatic: the presence of others and the overwhelming audio/ visual media greatly enhances your enjoyment

ok, now compare: you're going to sit, alone, in front of a 19 inch monitor, in your basement, with your computer whirring in the background, and watch lord of the rings

oh joy

see my point?

add popcorn. add a friend or two. make it a projector. add a booming sound system. it's stil not the same. really

every single slashdotter who ever complains about cellphones and babies and loud rude jerks is still going to go to the movie theatre. again and again. i will bet money on it. in fact, their emotionally strong reaction to the ringing cell phone or loud rude jerk in theatre tells you exactly how important the movie theatre experience is to them. they don't want it messed with. people loudly proclaim how they will abandon something the love dearly if they are hurt or wounded. but they always come back, because they still love it

the cinema isn't going anywhere. look only for future growth. that's a fact

even if the MPAA magically said tomorrow they were completely abandoning DVDs and releasing all movies for free on line in highest quality the same day as release in theatres. people are still going to flock to movie houses, and movie houses will still grow. point of fact

so like you talk about prince giving live concerts, or matthew broderick in the producers on broadway: i say to you that the movie house experience is just as much still alive and kicking and unthreatened by bittorrent and just as irreplaceable

Re:bravo, well said

[StarvingSE]

Actually, I never go to the theater. I know that doesn't mean other /.ers don't either, but all I'm saying is that I haven't been to a movie since star wars ep III, and neither have any of my friends.

The reason I did go to star wars is because of what you said: it was an experience. Standing in line with fellow star wars geeks, looking at the costumes, and being able to say "hey, I was there opening day." It was worth the $9.00 for the ticket.

For any other movie, the $9.00 is just not worth it. For most movies, there isn't a crazy obsessed fan base. It is simply normal people, who gab on their cell phones, kick the seat, talk through the movie... etc. No one dared talk through star wars, everyone was a true fan. Most other movies, they are just there for something to do.

Movie theaters are declining. In my area alone, most of the smaller theaters have gone under, or are converted to dollar shows. They are replaced by two main gigantic 30 screen cinemas. I have to believe that this consolidation is due to lack of demand for the theater experience.

I don't want to see the theater die for the simple fact that there are some movies, such as star wars, that I would want to see there. However, they either need to lower the outrageous ticket price or add more to the experience. My suggestion is to have theaters that are 21 and older. This way, the teenie-bopper problem is taken care of, and they can serve alcohol. This way they can lower ticket prices and more than make up for it in bar sales. Its a lot better than going to some local bar where they charge you a cover to see some crap local band play covers.

Re:bravo, well said

[Wildcat J]

My suggestion is to have theaters that are 21 and older. This way, the teenie-bopper problem is taken care of, and they can serve alcohol. This way they can lower ticket prices and more than make up for it in bar sales.

I agree, and in fact there are some theaters doing just that. Check out the Alamo Drafthouse. It started in Austin and seems to be expanding to the rest of Texas (fingers crossed for expansion to Arizona). They don't necessarily play the current blockbusters, but if it's really catching on, maybe others will start to emulate them.

Re:bravo, well said

[WreathOfBarbs]

Why would you not take the extra effort to locate a stadium theater? As a matter of fact *most* of the theaters in my area are stadium theaters, so that is a non-issue for me. Personally, I am not that critical of a movie if it provides at least a modicum of entertainment for me. It's an opportunity for me to get out of the house and either socialize with friends or meet new people. The hours spent after a movie discussing it and all the myriad related subjects that come up in the discussion are worth the price of admission regardless of the movie itself. Heck even the rare movie that is totally ruined by some jerk becomes fuel for stories that are recounted many times over the years to your friends and family when the subject of movies comes up.

All the different factors you mentioned just make the movie going experience more interesting in the long run, as it gives me something to bitch and moan about to my friends. I don't find the experience of watching a movie nearly as satisfying at home where there are an equal number of distractions, many of which are much harder to ignore (important phone calls, visitors at the door, kids and pets).

As far as the price of movies versus games, I don't think it's as clear cut as that. You have as much chance of getting a crap game as you do a crap movie, and the initial price point is often much higher, $40-60. So if you don't actually get that 15 hours of entertainment you lost a more significant investment. Second, a well done movie is an order of magnitude more engrossing than a well done game, particularly as far as emotional involvement with the characters in the story go. Computer games are an art in it's infancy and has a quite some time to go before it is mature enough to compete with movies as an art form. This is coming from an avid gamer and World of Warcraft addict.

Legal battle in Sweden

[denoir]

The battle of piracy laws in Sweden is far from over but there have been a number of defining decisions and events that will affect the end result.

The first major blow to the anti-piracy lobby was when the courts ruled that collecting IP addresses was a privacy violation.

The second blow was when the courts fined a guy that was engaged in sharing movies. The big point was that they didn't send him to jail. By Swedish law for a search warrant to be issued, the suspected crime must be punishable by jail. So no search warrants for copyright infringements.

The third blow was that the courts found that electronically collected evidence was not enough for a copyright infringement conviction. Hard evidence was needed (computer hardware with the violating media installed) - which was not possible to obtain because of the previous ruling.

The pirate bay spectacle has come at a huge political cost for the involved. The former minster of justice Thomas Bodström is facing hearings suspected of "ministerstyre" - as a minister putting pressure on civil servants, something excessively illegal and unconstitutional. It's major league stuff.

Furthermore the pirate bay case according to almost every legal analysis is non-existent. They didn't even have any copyrighted material on their server - just torrent links - which is not against Swedish law. So why hasn't the case been dropped? Because everybody got so scared over the political shit storm came down crashing following the raids last year. Nobody involved wants to touch it and much less admit that it was because of political pressure. So the prosecutor is pushing on with the case although it is blatantly obvious to everybody that there won't be any convictions.

If this all above makes you think that the battle is over and has been lost by the anti-pirating lobby, well, you'd be wrong. Swedish law is much less precedent based than for instance US or UK laws. The text of the law is more important than previous cases and you need a shitload of precedent before it becomes relevant. Right now we have something that amounts to anecdotal evidence. The anti-piracy lobby groups are trying to get convictions that would go against the existing precedents and it is not entirely impossible that they will succeed.

The political situation is a bit different as file sharing is really on the march in Sweden. Some 1.2 million were estimated in 2005 and 2.5 million in 2006. That's a lot for a population of 9 million. You can't make nearly a third of the population criminals and the politicians have recognized that. Through that and because of the pirate bay scandal all the Swedish major parties have expressed the wish to find some form of general solution (a tax of some sort has been suggested) for both allowing people to freely download and for the artists to get paid. While this is far from being implemented, the idea of a "war on piracy" is very dead. The anti-piracy groups will do their thing but they can't expect any political support.

hehehe...

[Simulant]

"And what father would give his little daughter a copy of the 20th-anniversary edition of The Little Mermaid with the title scrawled in Sharpie?"

This one.
To not do so would be hypocritical on my part.

  The "end of the entertainment industry as we know it" does not strike me as a bad thing.

I sure do!

[Stoutlimb]

"Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie?"

I sure do! It helps daddy save up for the pony.

Re:Who works 3 jobs and eats TV Dinners?

[MrMarket]

You're intentionally missing the point. TV dinners are about nutrition/time value. I only work one job and don't have time to cook. My lunch is 15 mins. of /. while I down a Trader Joe's burrito. TV Dinners (or should I say Desktop Lunches?) are a compromise between eating out and finding time to cook.

Re:Who works 3 jobs and eats TV Dinners?

[spun]

You have no idea what it's like to be poor, and your snide comments merely show your ignorance, not your superior problem solving skills. Don't think you are mentally superior to everyone who is poor.

I'm not poor (now) and I still eat frozen dinners for lunch because it's economical. $0.80 to $1.00 per cheap dinner, 350-500 calories per dinner plus decent amount of vitamins and minerals added. I love to cook, but figuring in my time, cost of ingredients, and so forth, the dinners are far more economical than what I can make. Not nearly as tasty or good for you, but I'm a busy guy so frozen dinners make sense for me.

Re:Who works 3 jobs and eats TV Dinners?

[mrsbrisby]

With that much money coming in, a single person or even a couple could afford to eat better.

How much money coming in do you think 3 jobs gets you?

When its said someone works three jobs doesn't mean they're working 40+40+40 hours a week. They're probably only working about 60-70 hours a week. If they make minimum wage, they're probably barely scraping together 1000$ a month.

That's not a lot of money, but it's significantly higher than the poverty limit. It's barely enough for an extremely modest mortgage, utilities, toiletries, 90 or so "2 dollar cheese pizzas", and 30 gallons of gasoline. They even have some money left to splurge and buy a book once in a while.

Did these 'working poor' get raped on a mortgage because they really couldn't afford to own a home but wanted one anyway?

A mortgage should always be cheaper than renting: why would you possibly think your landlord's mortgage was higher than your rent?

Did these 'working poor' simply not get educated on how to eat affordably? Buy a whole freakin' chicken. Buy the 30lb bag of rice. Buy the huge bags of frozen store-brand veggies. There you go.

Check prices on those things. The cheese pizzas are actually cheaper per-meal- and likewise- so are the TV dinners.

Did these 'working poor' have children when they couldn't afford to have children?

Maybe, or maybe they lost their jobs when the President gave tax credits to companies who outsourced American jobs overseas. Maybe they lost their jobs when their office building was blown up by an airplane. Only a fool would pretend to know.

Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum necessary allowence to have an "acceptable" standard of living, and at minimum wage it takes quite a bit more than 40 hours of work, but you seem to think that's okay.

Just exactly how many hours a week does someone need to work in order to afford a house? Healthy food? Clean water? A child?

Or do you really believe the definition of capitalism intends for people to degrade themselves below the acceptable standards of living when someone wants to buy a book?

Re:i could rebut you with words

[drinkypoo]

Looks like you are my nemesis in this thread. I shall now go on to dismantle this comment.

If we look at 2005 and 2006 we can see that the number of tickets sold in 2005 was down 8.9%. It rose only 1.4% in 2006, although the number of movies released was something like 10% greater. Thus there was actually a net loss in tickets sold per film.

You have presented evidence that, in fact, people are going to see movies less, in an attempt to show that they are going more. Nice work there, sport. Perhaps you should be a slashdot editor.

Also, a rise of 1.4% after falling more than 10% (total) over the past three years, with losses each year, does not a trend make. So I'm not sure what you were trying to say anyway. But actually looking at the numbers in some useful way would have shown you the folly of trying to use the statistics to support your untenable position.

They should make it cheaper

[guruevi]

They should make movies, music etc. much cheaper and without DRM, especially the main stream media. Sure they can say, that it costs a lot to create stuff, but if we give the performing people according to what they do and not what they look like, that would make the costs plummet. I always hate when they talk about an actor, getting $13 million for maybe a year long project. I probably won't ever make that in my life. I currently think I am paid pretty well (70k+) and I can support myself. I can understand that they probably need/want/deserve more but anything over $2m/year is a little overrated for me.

Also, eliminate organizations like RIAA, MPAA and other shills that are not adding any positive value to the process (that includes DRM, ratings etc). Look at any standard business model, any piece in an organization that is not performing or delivering any added value (short or long term) to the organization is (usually) cut loose.

PI.R.A.tes?!

[cianjo]

FTFA: "...the prosecutor responded in hysterical Valenti mode, comparing Pirate Bay to the I.R.A. ..."

WTF... Seriously. The IRA (Well all the different factions thereof) is a criminal organisation that has *killed* thousands of people. (Or is this some pacifist Swedish I.R.A. that I'm not aware of?)

The Pirate Bay has caused no loss of life with its intellectual property infringement. Unless you count the despairing MPAA executives jumping to their deaths. That prosecutor has no fscking idea what he is talking about. Seriously.

It's basically the same as comparing Bush, Blair, [insert disliked politician] to Adolf Hitler, or calling certain groups Nazis (that don't actually have an anti-foreigner agenda). Totally asinine and downright dangerous in any case, except when the groups involved are *actually* Neo-Nazis of some shape or form.

Stupid comparisons like this cause people to forget how horrific some things were, and cheapens the lessons that history has taught us at so great a cost.

[Disclaimer: I'm Irish, so this is a particular gripe of mine.]

Re:12 mil must be nice

[OldeTimeGeek]

There's a reason that Ben Affleck makes $12 million. It's the same reason that Michael Jordan, Luciano Pavarotti or anybody else famous could demand the salaries that they got - people will pay to see them. When you fill seats, you can demand any price that you want.

Will one of your $100,000 wonders cause people to watch the movie just because they're in it?

Ack - the historical inaccuracies alone...

[Garwulf]

Okay - my brain imploded reading this. Between the historical inaccuracies and the complete lack of understanding of what copyright is...this needs a correction.

"But that isn't the key element of why "piracy" is good for the market of art creation -- "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful."

Um, no, it doesn't. Piracy is the movement of power to the pirates. Creative power has changed hands to a large degree, but not in the way that you've described, but more on that below.

"For the first few thousand years or so of writing on paper, the distribution mechanism was a tiny industry of copy-writers."

Um...no, that isn't really true. The distribution depends a great deal on the level of literacy, and there have been some very literate societies in the past. I'm working on a textbook right now about ancient Greek and Roman humour, and if one thing is certain, it is that these people had access to literature, could read, and could write. The copying of manuscripts itself was the source of a scribal industry, but it certainly doesn't seem to be centralized at all, and the more literate the society, the larger the industry. Actually getting the manuscripts to people is another matter entirely, and we know for a fact that there were libraries - the Great Library of Alexandria being a perfect (and very famous) example.

There is some centralization after the fall of the Roman Empire, where the copying of manuscripts moves into the monasteries.

"Most villages had one Bible as their own written word, and it stayed this way for generations."

Frankly, that's really not true at all. The various Jewish communities, even through the "Dark Ages," required that everybody be able to read Torah, and a lot of commentaries were written as these communities moved around. The Islamic world remained very literate. Monasteries had their own private libraries. In many villages, however, where life had gone to a subsistence level, they didn't even have a Bible - at least not one they could generally read. While there was an Old English translation (which apparently has the war in Heaven written into Genesis), it was the exception, and the Bibles were written in Latin.

"The printing press blew open the door for people getting their ideas out -- that is all it was about."

Well, not really. The printing press made it possible to have a literate society, as it was now possible to reproduce books quickly and with (relatively) minimal effort. But, Gutenberg was trying to make money by solving a problem of reproduction, and it seems the first book off his press was an edition of the Bible. And, one of his biggest moneymakers was printing indulgences for the Church. I very much doubt Gutenberg had such lofty ideals. But, the inexpensive reproduction of texts came at a time when Europe was ready, and made the expression of ideas to a larger, literate public, possible.

"People wrote to increase their power to attract an audience to pay them for their knowledge."

Um...that's a half truth. When it came to sheer knowledge, you have to look at the first universities, based on the Cathedral Schools, where the textbook was reproduced by the professor dictating it to his students, who copyied it down verbatum. There were people like Talhoffer (one of the great swordfighting masters) who would write a book containing some of his knowledge to drum up business. Prior to the eighteenth century, most people seem to have been writing poetry, fiction, or academic treatises. Writers didn't get paid for their work at this point - they were paid a stipend by a wealthy patron who they would dedicate their work to (it's a subtle distinction, but a very important one - they were being paid to make their patron look good in their writing, not making money off the success of their work).

"Shakespeare's money didn't come from bookmaking, but from attracting others to his plays. His name was strong because of the press, but