Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Touts Record Year For Hollywood
proudhawk writes "A blog posting in p2pnet today catches MPAA boss Dan Glickman at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas crowing about Hollywood's profitable year: 'Today, we stand on a new mountaintop, and I have to say: I like the view... We had about 5 percent growth in both the domestic and worldwide box office, all-time highs on both fronts reminding us once again that good stories well told always find a place in our hearts, our lives and our local theaters.' What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?"
What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?
the "ravages of online piracy" excuse is for years when they knowingly put out complete garbage and don't want to own up to it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This doesn't contradict the "ravages of piracy" at all. Instead, the MPAA will say, "See, look! We cracked down on pirates and had a record year! CRACK DOWN HARDER!", as a justification for their future activities.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Obviously just tryna keep a brave face in the midst of complete bankruptcy.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
Do "box office" revenues include DVD sales?
Visit the
They are saying box office revenues increased. Piracy most likely hurts DVD sales and rentals more than going to a theater. There is a big difference between a movie theater and a DIVX movie on you 17 inch LCD monitor, or if you are more crafty, a bigger TV. Its the equivalent of saying "box office revenues went up despite the rampant use of recordable media in the home". From my experience, a movie you go and spend $10 on plus refreshments, and gas (plus potentially someone else's ticket and refreshments) is not something you would download instead.
No one is saying piracy is having a dramatic affect on film sales yet. It will eventually. Saying it never will is a silly argument because it's had a dramatic affect on music sales. The real point to make would be what would have film sales been without any piracy? It was 5% with piracy what if it was 7% without? 2% a tiny number? Actually no you're talking 200 million in looses if that was the case. Just look at South East Asia and China. Film sales are near zero inspite of US films being very popular. It's virtually a 100% pirated content. If people had to pay $20 instead of $1 or $2 there would be fewer films sold but still the industry is loosing hundreds of millions and conceivably billions in those markets to piracy. The whole argument itself is pointless because people that pirate don't want to change and the industry doesn't want to work for free so as piracy grows like in the music industry they either find another way to make money off films, in film commercials, product placement, etc, or they go out of business. I've yet to hear of another model that can support the industry so likely high budget films will die slowly over the next 20 years. They are preparing to spend hundreds of millions on 3D projection systems to try to hang onto box office growth but it's a desperation move and it won't save theatrical films in the long run. Take away the financial incentives for making movies and you're left with people in the midwest making Star Trek knock offs in their garages and rednecks running their bicycles into trees on Youtube for entertainment.
What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?"
Yeah I agree. Stores make profit - Whatever happened to shoplifting. It must have no effect!
I record my sleeptalking
Seems to me the MPAA is a bit more proactive in their tactics, in that they're trying to raise awareness about piracy instead of lashing out at random civilians with lawsuits like the RIAA does. Letters to ISPs saying "cut it out" seem to be the standard MO.
On the other hand they're extremely harsh with people selling bootleg DVDs, their main concern seems to be stopping mass distribution of pirated disks particularly while movies are in the theater (or before they even make it there.)
Not saying they don't do some things that are questionable, but they do seem to be making the transition with a little more grace... I don't feel the outrage against them that I do the RIAA. They're more annoying than evil in their tactics.
Without them, it could have been a 6 percent increase and I could buy a new ferrar... erh, I mean, yeah, right, where is the neck-breaking pirates now?
Seriously, people. The three driving emotions for people are greed, fear and greed. And the more you have, the bigger your greed gets. You have 5 percent increase (when everyone else is struggling to stay in business or have any kind of profit at all)? Doesn't mean jack, you want 6. You want 7. You want 10. And you could have 10 percent more income if it wasn't for all those who copy the content. It would be 15 if you could force people to throw away their VHS tapes. Hell, it could be 30 percent if you could force them to throw away DVDs!
It could be 50 percent if you could make those BluRays die after playing them 10 times. It could be 100 percent if you can make them so they die right after playing the movie once! It could be 200 percent when they couldn't play the movie at all... erh...
Well, if they still buy it that is.
And that's what this is about. The studios want more. They are not satisfied by having more than everyone else, they're not satisfied with having the best year of their existance, they're not satisfied with making a plus when the economy as a whole is struggling to avoid that big bad word that starts with an r and ends in cession. they want to have more than they already have. And they see some way to make more (i.e. crack down on those that copy), so they try to get rid of them. If they found a way to make you pay for every time you watch that movie, they would gladly do so.
And I'm fairly sure the next generation of players will have some sort of internet connection that enforces something like that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fifteen years before that, the RIAA leaders touted their "record year" for album sales, and CDs immediately supplanted records in 1988 and never looked back.
And thirty years ago in 1978 when Tomita released the final quad 8-track tape, the industry said it was "on track" for the best year ever as it instead saw the multi-track format slip into oblivion.
So when the MPAA touts a shiny year for DVDs, Blu-Ray is probably poised to make them eat their words.
That's partly true I think but the drive in Piracy would be more due to the way the studios try to fragment their markets in different regions, to maximise their own profits.
The internet has made the planet a truly global community and they have to relase globally, not try to stagger around the planet with Theatrical releases/DVD Releases and even different dates for TV premiere's.
In Australia we still cannot get video/TV on iTunes because of this or get access to other such online content because its all being restricted, so many people resort to pirace to see what they want and not wait 3-6 months(Up to a year some times) later.
Like the music industry the movie industry will only end up hurting itself by trying to contain online content rather then let it flourish in an open market, the more they put online for fair prices the more people will pay. Just take phone ring tones as an example of how people are willing to spend money on absolute crap. If more people could get movies at those prices they would be making huge sales.
Sounds like you're making up for never having a date to take to the movies. :P
Of course they have an increase in profits. There are actually some very high quality films coming out this year. Iron Man? The Dark Knight? Those are good reasons to go to theaters. The way I look at it, I either spend $10 on a movie ticket or I spend $20 on a DVD a year or two later - and the DVD is almost always worth it. I go to 2-6 movies a year, and they really have to earn my patronage by being a good film. And, of course, my friends have to be interested as well. I don't see how "high budget movies" are going to go the way of the dinosaur. If anything, digital distribution is going to make getting movies out *easier*. Movie theaters are sure to disappear over time, but digital distribution will probably increase the profits of movies if they do it right. Bandwidth is always cheaper than physical media.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Wait a second? Isn't this the same industry that cooks the books to never run a profit on movies so they don't have to pay their people? I assume these profits must be including all those "services" they charge themselves for. To me that seems a liability. It seems like they just gave the final data points necessary for all those people promised net points of nothing to do the math and find what their movies really made.
Oh, those ravages are still there, but today the Hollywood spokespeople are interpreting the numbers to say they've made tons of cash. It's further proof that no matter what the actual situation is in Hollywood, they can claim any amount of piracy damage or massive profit that their agenda of the moment demands owing to their incredible ability to spin the true data.
A better question would be: how many people in Hollywood actually know the reality behind how well Hollywood is doing? I'm beginning to think the number is disturbingly low.
...imagine how much _MORE_ we could have made."
If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
I hate parasites like you that refuse to pay for what they use.
(Same AC)
You must really hate yourself, for you don't appear to be a subscriber here on /.
Ignore this signature. By order.
I think I actually helped the movie industry though. Every time I liked a movie I watched before it was actually released, I would talk it up. Hell, I think I sent enough people to the movie theaters in the last year that Hollywood should actually pay me for advertising.
How many of the 20 top grossing movies of 2007 were not adaptations, remakes, or franchise installments? How many actually involved original creative development?
For that matter, how many were over-hyped drivel titled "[adjective] Movie" or starring Will Ferrell?
Hollywood is out of ideas. Period.
When will they learn? It's the movies, stupid! Hollywood had an excellent year because the movies were better. They had decent blockbusters, and for quality movies we had the best year (IMHO) in over a decade. You had a ton of mainstream movies like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Harry Potter, Bourne 3, etc. You had incredible smaller films like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Jesse James, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Michael Clayton, 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days, etc.
The theater/DVD system isn't fundamentally broken like the modern music industry. Piracy, casual sharing, and complete dreck aren't killing the market. During years when the movies are shit, profits and revenues fall. When you have an absolutely fantastic year like 2007, profits rise. It's pretty goddamn simple.
People pay for the big screen. People pay for live shows. You can't make a digital copy of a 60ft screen and you can't make a digital copy of being in a crowd, watching a live band. The only reasons theater sales drop are: 1. Crappy films 2. Obnoxious theater goers 3. Cell phones (see number 2)
I hate parasites like you that refuse to pay for what they use. No, YOU get a fucking job.
I hate parasites like you that refuse to work for a living and expect money for nothing.
If you live in the US, you're still missing out...the films you watch in HD at home aren't the same movies that you can see at the cinema, they're last year's box office stories. Now, here in Australia, a great many films end up on my big screen via an .mkv file on the hard drive well before they hit the local cinema :D
Why?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I like Slashdot. I love movies and music. But I don't subscribe here; I do also block the ads. But it wouldn't scar my soul to see Slashdot suddenly vanished from the bits of the Internet, much as I wouldn't mind there not being a single new movie or album release ever again.
I'll always be able to make my own music and who really needs movies when you have music and friends?
Income break-up:
- Cinema licenses: 5%
- TV licenses: 25%
- DVD sales: 10%
- Litigation: 60%
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
No one with a brain would dispute that "piracy" has some negative effect on their bottom line. The context is "how much of an effect" and "how does that relate proportionally to overall profits?" The MPAA would have you believe that online file sharing is putting the industry at death's door -- hardly. Similarly, the oil industry will tell you that they cannot moderate pump prices a bit to help out the middle class and the overall economy even though every year brings them ever increasing record-setting profits. See, in the corporate world, it's not "how much did we make," it's "how much MORE could we be making." Because no matter how much that is, it's never "enough." Of course, individuals fall into that same trap. If you make $25,000 a year, you want $50K. If you make $100K, you want $200K. And if you're a ballplayer making $10 million a year, your next contract better be a significant increase over that or you'll shop yourself to another team. It has nothing to do with whether what you currently earn is more than enough to meet your needs, even if it's enough to meet your needs for the rest of your life. You always want more. It's called "greed."
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
It's amazing. 5% growth despite 4 Michael Bay productions...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
It's funny, I didn't see any movies in the theatre this last year, nor did I rent or download any. So no profit from me, which is fine with me as Hollywood keeps putting out a bunch of crap anyway.
People love the "great man" theory of history. Reagan single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union. Clinton was "responsible" for the economy of the 90s. The MPAA can just as well step in and take credit for their part in promoting the need for the public to support Hollywood. Most people won't argue.
is that an instruction because he/she is creased?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Just shows how much falsity is actually being spread with the propaganda and the media, when the sharing of certain files is a great thing, p2p torrents are being hurt by the ISPs trying to do good by the big movie companies, which is only hurting us in the end, we pay more for our bandwidth etc...
All I can say is, "see i told you so"...they are all f*cking liars
We had about 5 percent growth in both the domestic and worldwide box office, all-time highs on both fronts reminding us once again that good stories well told always find a place in our hearts, our lives and our local theaters.' What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?"
Not sure about the ravages of online piracy, but inflation in the US was about 3% last year, and the projections for current US inflation put it at about 4.6%. I'm not sure if their growth estimate takes the increase in CPI into account. Mayhaps someone with a more global view on inflation rates could chime in and give us an adjusted Hollywood growth rate?
Reid
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Dude, chill. Yeah we're all a bunch of worthless loafers who refuse to pay for crap. You must be a longstanding member of the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA/IFPI/CRIA. Because you seem to be standing up for them.
WHAT A MAROON!!
She has one. She's the woman who divorced her alcoholic wife-beating husband and is supporting three kids, that asked if you wanted fries with that last night after cleaning your neighbor's house all day because YOU and your neighbor are too damned cheap to pay your employees a living wage.
You want her to stop pirating? Pay her better. Pass some minimum wage laws that will actually allow a family to survive.
People like you make me sick.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Yeah. It's eight bucks, and I can't swing it. I'm fucking poor.
Those damned hookers get expensive, don't they?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You can have increasing profits and still be losing potential sales (and thus even higher increases in profit) to piracy, you know.
Not saying that that's the case, just that as usual things are nowhere near as black and white as some people try to paint them.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Watch who you call "fags" when you wear all that make-up yourself, Gene Simmons......
I'm just not sure that most of the trash being churned out by Hollywood is even worth the price of a blank disk, that's all.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
> What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?
Going to the movies is an event. People will go even when they have access to downloaded versions because the movie itself is not the whole of the event.
Concerts are also an event, but are far more expensive, more rare and almost invariably less convenient than going to the movies. Plus, a concert is almost never exactly what an album is in content, whereas a movie is. Having seen a movie in a theater, and given the much greater size (ie. download time and storage requirement) fewer are likely to then download it. Even if they've been to a concert, people are more likely to download a studio album with some similar material.
TFA was not about DVD and other pay-per-content venues. However, the statements probably hold for those too, because the margin on DVDs etc. is much less as well as downloads being less frequent. The "loss" the MPAA would hypothesize would be far less a proportion of the gross.
Note that the MPAA et al. would still report a loss even if the opposite effect (increased sales due to downloading) holds, as has been hypothesized. I'm not confident the data collection and analysis supports that hypothesis, although neither would it support an MPAA report of loss. MPAA has to report loss regardless, as failure to do so would mean not supporting claims of copyright violation. Doing that not only means loss of any relevant piracy lawsuits, but also potentially loss of the copyright involved. Failure to protect them can result in loss of them. That point explains the variance between the claims and actions of MPAA/RIAA etc. and any hard data, or lack thereof, supporting any "loss" or the opposite. Claims of loss are almost invariably just that -- claims. They are usually arbitrary and grossly inflated guesstimates. That improves the chances in lawsuits.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I've never been like one of those apologists for piracy who are trying to make it work for the MPAA to keep existing. "Actually mp3s are good for business and they should stop fighting the consumer"
I'm glad they are fighting the consumer because I hope that whole propaganda system (aka: violence is the only interesting story and gives our life meaning... working together is not something to think about... etc) to die.
But,
I beleive the industry is doing better in both DVD and Cinema sales than it would without piracy. In the late 90s the movies all sucked and people were not paying attention. Now that I am addicted to BT I pay attention to all the movies even the dumb ones. Its so pathetic. I'm way more likely now to care about movies and buy them. I use to just ignore them completely. Now that I can get them free and feel a little high that I'm cheating The Man, I pay attention to the dumb movies. It's really clever marketing on their part, intentional or not. I'm sucked in and do all this research and try to get old movies. Mow I have DVDs I actually WANT and may get if I can't find them p2p or if the quality of the p2p copy isn't ok (subtitles etc)
Of course the realities of IP are on their side. They don't really lose anything when you make a copy. All they do is get you to do the work of copying for them so it is super for them. Their industry is propaganda of ideas. Maybe they miss a few royalties on discs pressed, but then they don't have to press a disc which may be cheap but isn't free. We suck up the costs now. Pay huge ISP rates for the privledge.
On the up side I think it has forced there to be better movies overall. All that research into obscure movies and the convienience of only paying for something you like means the typical Hollywood fare is less profitable and I would argue we are seeing more creativity. Even some movies which aren't completely spoken in cliche and violence.
Still, we are absorbing the propaganda more efficiently than ever and they are still getting rich.
And I agree with many comments, they will say this increase in profit is due to anti-piracy. It's illogical but the press will report it. The Anti-Piracy makes us all think that BT is helping to fight the man, when in fact we are just watching movies - keeps us involved. The Anti-Piracy sweeps also serve to keep the business model from changing to new technology or having to sell movies on the merit of the content alone rather than the experience of being a 'clever hacker.' Also they can beat down the real radicals like piratebay and help support the more corrupt businesses that will never be real competitors (too short term)
Stupidity is its own reward.
I do not declaim how much I hate fucking parasites. Thus I may point out other people's hypocrisy without being noticeably hypocritical myself.
Ignore this signature. By order.