Hollywood Sets $10 Billion Box Office Record

kamikazearun sends in a TorrentFreak analysis that begins "Claims by the MPAA that illegal downloads are killing the industry and causing billions in losses are once again being shredded. In 2009, the leading Hollywood studios made more films and generated more revenue than ever before, and for the first time in history the domestic box office grosses will surpass $10 billion. ... [N]either the ever-increasing piracy rates nor the global recession could prevent Hollywood having its best year ever in 2009. With an estimated $10.6 billion in consumer spending at the US and Canadian box office, the movie industry will break the 2008 record by nearly a billion dollars."

Comments

Big Suprise!

[LordofEntropy]

I'm shocked...

Re:Big Suprise!

[davester666]

Just think how much money they could have made if everybody here stopped stealing all their movies. At least another couple million dollars!

Re:Big Suprise!

[uuddlrlrab]

No, really...

I'm shocked.
I am...

Honest.

I'm being super-cereal!

Re:Big Suprise!

[uuddlrlrab]

They could have afforded all three gold-plated Humvees filled with whores and coke, instead of only springing for two per person. Poor deprived movie execs...

Re:Big Suprise!

[xOneca]

Me too. Poor producers... only $10 billion... You bastard downloaders!

HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, this the MPAA? Sorry, I get my robber baron Associations of America mixed up from time to time. Carry on.

Re:HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[Tuoqui]

Dont worry, its fine. They're all owned by the same parent companies anyways.

Re:HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[xOneca]

Wait, wait. One moment. Sony, the big producer, is worrying about home taping that's killing music and Sony, the big manufacturer, is (was) selling double plate recording devices? I will never understand this... :-S

Re:HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[rwa2]

Well, at least in Canada, I hear that the recording industry does get a cut of blank media sales, regardless of whether that media will go on to be used to record copyrighted works or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

So don't worry... the recording industry has it covered! :-P

Re:HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[dave87656]

Same thing in Germany. They also get a cut on anything that could be used to play music, which means they get a cut on your computer, your harddrive, your modem/router (because you could use it download music), USB sticks, CD's, DVD's and so on. What a racket.

Re:HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!!!!

[xOneca]

That's nothing. In Spain they also tax DVD players/recorders, photocopiers, printers, ... Radio stations pay tax and if you play the radio on public you have to pay another tax.

Even they've parodied SGAE with another association called SOPPIE (Toilet-paper-makers association) claiming that newspapers, magazines, ... have to be taxed because they can also be used to wipe your ass.

How the MPAA thinks:

[gooman]

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the next bits...

"Then by doubling ticket prices, changing a few laws and ripping our customers off repeatedly we can make that 30 billion."

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[eldavojohn]

"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"

Don't worry, they'll simply sue ten thousand people for a million dollars each to get their money back. They may need a government bailout in the meantime. Nearly every single one of your elected officials have enjoyed soft money from the MPAA to ensure that everyone rolls over and sits when the MPAA instructs them to.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is holywood into pxrn ?

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

every single one of your elected officials has
I don't understand: English is one of the least inflected languages ever spoken and yet people still have a way of picking the wrong verb form with remarkable consistency.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[grimJester]

That's unlikely. They'll claim they spend more than ever to make movies and just barely make a profit. What they think is "We need new laws and ways to prevent consumers from watching the same movie twice without paying both times, watching movies on hardware not made by the same companies that own the movie studios or watching movies not made by the big studios."

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[paiute]

Hollywood has never turned a profit.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds no worse than their "piracy takes money from the poor starving artists" while they use creative accounting to make more and more money and DRM & politicians to screw their customers more and more.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[sjames]

No, but it is justification to call the "problem" of copyright infringement insignificant.

It is also justification for the viewpoint that copyright as it stands now is more than adequate to ensure more production of works. Were it not, they would have produced LESS each year. Since that is the only Constitutional purpose of copyright, we need add no more protections.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, wouldn't you?

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[InMSWeAntitrust]

According to Hollywood's accountants.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[selven]

So, what's 30 billion minus 20 billion? Uhh...

80 billion! Doubling ticket prices, changing some laws and ripping off customers will make them 80 billion dollars.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if we push for more copyright legislation, we can make that 160 billion! OOooh, yeah!"

(At this point the exec will be in his bunk, probably.)

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

And it shall remain insignificant as long as the common person cannot see a theatre-screen-sized, hd quality rip of movies. What I love is that noone ever blames their lack of profit in either recording industry on the possibility that their product just wasn't worth buying....

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing revenues correlating with increasing piracy also dovetails with the argument that piracy helps sales - piracy leads to more viewing leads to more discussion leads to more people being interested leads to more sales. I'm not sure I agree with this premise, but this data would seem to make it plausible at any rate.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[haruchai]

When Stan Lee had to sue to get his cut of the proceeds from SpiderMan, I started to look at the MPAA's kvetching about pirates
with a jaundiced eye. If they want us to care about alleged copyright infringement, then don't try to fuck over the icons that made us
into fans and made them rich(er).

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[dontmakemethink]

"We couldn't have made 10 Billion if it weren't for all of those music pirates!"

Fixed that for you.

And I mean it. Movies have the benefit of being social occasions, where groups of kids go to see a movie and share their thoughts after etc. It's a fraction the cost of a concert by the pop musicians they download, and recorded music doesn't stand a chance for their entertainment dollar. "Hrm, should I actually buy one of the 500 CD's I've downloaded, or should I try to make out with that new girl during Twilight, having already downloaded it too to see that it sucks..."

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Captain Spam]

"Okay. Look, sure, it IS record-setting revenues. But that's just going to bolster the pirate community to pirate us HARDER next year! So come on! We need more laws! I swear, ONE of these years we'll be right!"

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[LBt1st]

Wikipedia has a nice explanation of Hollywood Accounting.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the size of the screen, but the solid angle subtended that matters.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[bloodhawk]

I don't like the movie studios much but the article is highly misleading, it only mentions total revenue and if you dig into the articles the article itself references it clearly shows a declining profit per movie and less movies being made which kinda supports the studios positions. Personally though I think the declining profit is because most movies made nowadays are utter shit.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[VoidCrow]

I'm not familiar with the phrase 'soft money'... would someone explain please? thanks...

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Also, people seem to always forget that the original purpose (however flawed) of copyright was ostensibly to protect the authors from .... the publishers, distributors and all sorts of assorted middle-men, since at that time those were the only people (and I use the term loosely) who had access to equipment capable of mass duplication of works of art.

Fast forward 200 years or so and you have the artists back in the dog-house and the assorted middle-men controlling everything. Which only encourages them to bray louder about being robbed by "copyright violators" while stiffing the artists at every opportunity ... a grand monument to the power of corruption of laws and societies by shameless, vicious, malignant greed.

Incidentally this behaviour, of preemptively and rabidly accusing everyone else in sight of the very crimes one is committing himself, is very common amongst various villains in all walks of villainy, such as career politics for example.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[MartinSchou]

Biggest ever gross revenue.
Less profit per movie.
Fewer movies made.

That doesn't mean "movies are shit", because with fewer movies and the biggest gross revenue ever, they have either had the higher ticket prices or more tickets sold. Since 2008 was about 10 billion and 2009 is ~10.6 billon we're looking at an 6% increase in ticket prices or ticket numbers. Probably a mix of the two.

But if fewer movies were released in 2009 vs 2008, then the 6% increase in ticket prices/ticket numbers won't cover it.

What is more likely though, is that the average cost of a movie has gone up. If we have an 6% increase in gross revenue, but a 10% increase in average cost of a movie, you'll re declining profit. But a 10% increase in the cost of a movie cannot not be caused by copyright infringement - copyright infringement can only reduce income, not increase expense. In other words, the movie industry only has itself to blame for decreased profits when they set box office records with fewer movies.

Without having the exact numbers for 2008 and 2009 (tickets sold, average ticket price, number of movies released, average budget etc), we can't know for certain.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[JasterBobaMereel]

I used to go to the Cinema an watch movies - and thought it was worth it

Now I stay at home and watch movies ..... the same movies because the new ones are frankly mostly rubbish ...

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

ticket prices are up something between 10 and 20% I think from the figures I saw recently. attendence is slightly down as are movies numbers. increased revenue is entirely due to prices being jacked up. costs are higher and profits are way down.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[jedidiah]

> So, the success of the Music / Entertainment Industry is justification to pirate?
> We hate them and can rip them off because they are rich? Well, because that's what
> the whining here sounds like.

No. It's justification to ignore their drama queen antics and cries for further legal concessions.

Clearly the status quo is fine for them. They don't need any new laws. They don't even need
many of the recent changes to the law. They certainly don't require mass prosecutions, the
wholesale destruction of people's lives, or the the destruction of individual liberties,
consumer rights and consumer product protections.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[somersault]

[almost all of your] elected officials have

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Syberz]

Profits are not declining, they only want to make you think that they are. Look up Hollywood Accounting in wiki. Essentially, it's a sneaky technique that "hides" profits and allows you to pay less taxes while complaining that you're not making any money.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[wvmarle]

Maybe it's time for the studios to do something about those costs. Movie budgets are ridiculous these days.

Hong Kong also still makes movies. Not as many as in the 70s, but still they make movies. And they are often very popular here. I don't have exact numbers but I estimate a Hong Kong movie budget at 1-5% of a Hollywood production's budget. And they are not even worse that the shit Hollywood spews out these days.

The big difference: Hong Kong movies do without all those special effects and computer graphics. It's still the story that counts, while most Hollywood productions nowadays are just spectacles, carried fully by the special effects with the story just being an excuse for more special effects, like in American porn movies where the story is just an excuse to pass the censors.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, because those people will all even own one million dollars. ^^

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

A relative, who is an accountant, was fired from a Hollywood TV show for not keeping two sets of books. Seems that in Hollywood, ethically challenged means you have ethics that are challenged daily.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Fast forward 200 years or so and you have the artists back in the dog-house and the assorted middle-men controlling everything.

Well, to be fair, those artists are the ones who signed the contracts. They should not have signed them to begin with. Publishers are scum, plain and simple. Do not get into bed with scum, unless you have iron-clad contracts. They should demand a flat-fee or a percentage of gross revenue, period. If not, walk away. Otherwise, bring the Anal Lube and grease up... There should be absolutely no calculation that the publisher can perform in the middle, because they will take advantage.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

fewer

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[EpsCylonB]

hard money is contributions that are open, legal and easy to trace

soft money is given to politicians or organisations in a clandestine, untraceable way, it may or may not be illegal depending on the situation

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Anonymous Coward]

based purely on boxoffice (which this article is) they most definitely are declining as less people are going to the movies, there is no way you can twist that into claiming it is just "creative accounting". However the movie studios as a whole (which boxoffice is only a small part of the revenue) may well be using such methods to hide profits, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is complete garbage and infers success out of declining numbers as somehow proof that pirating is not hurting the industry.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[StikyPad]

It is also justification for the viewpoint that copyright as it stands now is more than adequate to ensure more production of works. Were it not, they would have produced LESS each year.

I believe you meant "fewer", but semantics aside, not all growth is healthy growth. Many industries exhibit growth right up to the point where they collapse.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, to be fair, those artists are the ones who signed the contracts.

In which they had no choice, which is by design of the middle men who until very recently controlled not only all the means of distribution but also all the means of promotion (and which they still influence greatly). And that control, not any lost sales, is why the scum is becoming so aggressive in attacking democracy and personal liberties - they simply have no other way to regain it from the citizenry to which they lost it thanks to technological progress.

The last thing that the "intellectual property" scam-artists want is for the consumer to actually have choices that involve a direct link to an artist, for that would mean the end of "sign-all-your-art-away-for-peanuts-or-live-in-obscurity" "choice" being the only thing on the table for the artists.

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[Explodicle]

it clearly shows a declining profit per movie

"Hollywood accounting" on Wikipedia

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

In which they had no choice

Are you saying the publishers held a gun to their head and forced them to sign the bad contract?

Re:How the MPAA thinks:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Are you saying the publishers held a gun to their head and forced them to sign the bad contract?

No, but the alternative is not to get published at all. For an artists it is to cease being an artist. An artistic suicide option, if you will.

Um, what about inflation?

[602]

Why is it that news stories about movie revenues never take inflation into account?

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well my paycheck doesn't, so why the hell should Hollywood's?

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[wizardforce]

Inflation would need to be nearly 10% for Hollywood to not have higher inflation adjusted revenues this year than last year.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[grim4593]

parent++;

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Idiomatick]

Minimum wage in many countries actually increases with inflation.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[rossdee]

This is about the domestic box office, so other countries aren't involved.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[pgn674]

Inflation would need to be nearly 10% for Hollywood to not have higher inflation adjusted revenues this year than last year.

And we've had deflation since March. The highest inflation rate since 2008 has been 5.6%.
Current Inflation

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[dikdik]

For a while I have been arguing that the debate should not be framed in the "innovator versus freeloader" view but in a "constitutional rights and individual property rights versus expansive intellectual property" view. Most Americans do not accept the idea that you have a right to give away a copy of a song to anyone who wants it. While we hear constantly about those numbers that "40% of internet users said they saw nothing wrong with pirating music" we cannot go by that. Americans are just like any other people; when we think we can get away with something that doesn't seem to directly hurt someone we do it. Downloading bootlegs doesn't seem to hurt anyone, but it can. If I had bootlegged the entire new Android Lust album instead of buying it on iTunes I would have not sent the chick behind AL any money. iTunes allowed me to send her maybe $2 for the album which I paid $10, probably a good $5 less than what I would have paid for a CD copy. We need to stress to the government that iTunes, not more legislation, is the key to getting the system working. We need to show them that bands like Metallica refuse to do their part because they want an all or nothing. Buy 20-30 songs on iTunes and you give Apple more ammo to counter the claims that piracy has no solution. They can just shrug in front of Congress and say "it's not our side, the legal downloading side, that has dropped the ball. They refuse to let people buy their tracks one by one because they want them to buy them all or nothing." There will always be politicians who will rail against piracy and ignore iTunes and other legal services, but many politicians will just look at these industries and say "the mechanisms are in place, why aren't you being a team player, why are you coming to us for help when there are companies dying to make the market work for you?" Politicans tend to be lazy, just look at how many Senate votes that John Kerry has missed in the past 12 years. Something like 1000 or more a year according to Fox News. We can appeal to the public by pointing out the supremacy of the 1st amendment over Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The first amendment was ratified later so it supercedes everything in the original constitution, just as all parts of the constitution must be read in the context of the Bill of Rights. We should also point out how anti-backup provisions and attitudes like Jack Valenti's "if you want a backup, buy another copy" are against common sense, American tradition and capitalist principles. I have yet to read of a prominent capitalist theorist who would support the DMCA. Rand, Ricardo, Hayek and Smith are probably spinning in their graves over the DMCA and similar "seller protection legislation." The hollywood position is built on pure, unprincipled greed. Defeating it only means that we need to be consistant and show the public where the law is going to start biting them in the ass if they don't care now.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Dragonslicer]

Why is it that news stories about movie revenues never take inflation into account?

From the summary: "With an estimated $10.6 billion in consumer spending at the US and Canadian box office, the movie industry will break the 2008 record by nearly a billion dollars."

If inflation were somewhere around 10%, I would imagine that we'd have bigger problems to deal with.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[hansamurai]

Or simply ticket stubs sold?

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

you believe government numbers? They changed methodology in the nineties and current numbers are lower (approx 5%) when compared to old calculation methods.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/consumer_price_index

Money supply as indicated by the M3 stat is growing recently approx 10% every year, there is no way to have deflation in such circumstances, when the GDP is going down the shitter

http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/m2m3_cpi_money_supply.png

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they would take that into account if it helped to prove the Slashdork point of view but since that would make the story much less sensational, to the point of proving the opposite of what the blurb assumes, it's left out.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[gmhowell]

Speaking of innovations, there's this wonderful new invention for writers called the paragraph.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Attila Dimedici]

The question is what were average ticket prices last year vs average ticket prices this year?

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[misexistentialist]

And we've had deflation since March.

If by "deflation" you mean that the dollar has lost a quarter of its value.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote the past "It's the economy, stupid" In a troubled economic times, it's been noted that people tend to go to the movies more than in good times. Not saying that accounts for all the increased receipts --but it probably has a lot do with it --especially when the tally is about box-office receipts.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of innovations, there's this wonderful new invention for writers called the paragraph.

Pff. Like I'm going to go about using someone's likely patented-by-now "paragraph invention". Perhaps in maybe 28 years or so when the pending patents expire and I no longer have to worry about patent trolls suing me for breaking up my written text into managable related topics I'll go ahead and make use of them. Until then, I'm going to do a work around and patent the "-" technique. - What is this technique you ask? I'm glad you asked. It's an invention, patent pending, where you split your blocks of related text with a simple dash. It works wonders compared to this "paragraph" thing you're talking about because it saves paper which helps preserve the rainforests. Thus I'm filing it as a green technology to fast track the process. - You might think it's stupid but once it catches on and I'm rolling in the dough we'll see who's laughing. - - Anon Coward

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[gmhowell]

You may not be licensing the 'paragraph method', but I see that you are a big fan of the not-in-the-public-domain 'punctuation mark method'.

And quite frankly, even a few dashes here and there would be preferable to that wall of text posted up above.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Caue]

nor costs. Revenue is great and all but how much was spent and what's the rentability? pertinent questions.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[imakemusic]

tl;dr

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[BiggoronSword]

Minimum wage in many countries actually increases inflation

Fixed that for ya! ;)

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[CapnStank]

Go easy on him. He's probably new around here and hasn't noticed that the html break is required to seperate lines. Again, preview is probably an awesome venture but whateva.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Hurricane78]

Of course now we have deflation. Every time the banks have the money, it’s a given, that it raises in worth.

Every time we have it, it’s a given that it falls in worth.

And the difference is free work, at our cost, and at the benefit of the banks.

That’s the whole point of money that is not based on gold.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[tompaulco]

And we've had deflation since March.
Lies, lies and more lies. My salary remains the same, my standard of living has gone down, I spend no money on luxuries, yet I am increasingly having trouble making ends meet. Why? Because the cost of things that you have to have or have to pay: basic necessities like food, utilities, insurance and gas and taxes keeps going up by 10-20% per year. Yet the government says we are having deflation. I detect the odor of feces of a bovine variety.
This year, I had to sell two cars. Okay, maybe that flies in the face of the luxury items I previously mentioned, but I purchased those cars outright with cash while making the same salary I am right now, yet somehow with supposedly no inflation, now I have to sell them just to get by.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Hurricane78]

He just tried to create the Chinese wall of text. Impenetrable to any human! ^^

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Golddess]

Let me get this straight, you bought two cars with cash? And now had to sell them both "just to get by"? Either those were some pretty inexpensive cars when you bought them, or your definition of "just getting by" has a few more lobster dinners in it than mine does.

That said, I've not noticed any deflation either. Quite the opposite actually, as gas currently is more expensive than it was this time last year. Though perhaps gas isn't the best commodity to use to track inflation, it's the only product that I can remember the price of from last year.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, thanks for making my life of piracy possible. Without paying shomes like you, what would the rest of us do?

Pay for media?

ROFL

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[gmhowell]

He's new??

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[tompaulco]

Well, that's the point. At my current salary, I had disposable income. This was about 4 years ago. The cars were not NEW cars. They were both about 20 years old, but they were NICE old cars. One had been $65k brand new, and the other about $30k brand new. However, due to the inflation which the government says we are not having, I no longer have disposable income, despite making the same salary, and now I have to sell off what I do have in order to make ends meet.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[CapnStank]

Well, yes... In my vast years of experience (Pause for laughter) I have come to the realization that 1283176 1696426.

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guh, removed my "Less than". Maybe I am too new here :(

Re:Um, what about inflation?

[DarthVain]

LOL!

They must be on strike again...

typical spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

If the box office receipts were way DOWN, someone here would post, "Clearly, the Hollywood moguls are out of touch with what moviegoers are interest in seeing. Maybe they should stop taking two martini lunches and doing coke in the back of stretch limos with starlets, and stop hiring yesterday's stars like Tom Cruise for $20 million a flick. Hello? That, not downloading, is what ails Hollywood today".

And every post contributing in support of that conclusion would be modded up. Maybe we'll get that a year from now.

Re:typical spin job

[PitaBred]

Who says that isn't still the case, even if they are making lots of money?

Re:typical spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, I myself am amazed that Cruise is still getting $20 million. But this blog piece just shows how silly the spinning can get: profits go down, it's because they're jerks. Profits go up, it's because they're jerks. It's the same kind of logic we see on the political sites.

Re:typical spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

what moviegoers are interested in seeing = what moviegoers have paid to see
repeat ad filthyricheum

Re:typical spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Slashdot is going to spin everything its own way; what else would you expect? I don't really know enough about the numbers, but there is a saying around here that correlation != causation; I would caution that just because Hollywood is setting box office records doesn't mean piracy doesn't hurt them. Obviously it doesn't to the extent they would like you to believe, but sometimes I wonder what would happen if piracy were not an option; would more people buy more copies, or would they just make do without? I honestly don't know the answer.

Re:typical spin job

[kkwst2]

Well if they're jerks, they're jerks, right? They're either jerks with more or less profit.

Put another way, their jerkiness is not defined by their profits, their profits are defined by their jerkiness.

Re:typical spin job

[Anonymous Coward]

where are my fucking mod points?!

Re:typical spin job

[daveime]

While trying to avoid putting too much spin on it, I'd rather just look at it in context.

$10 billion dollars means they took $1.50 from every man, woman and child on the plant.

While piracy may be hurting them, don't you think that a $10 billion profit means perhaps, just perhaps, the cost of their product is STILL TOO HIGH ?

And if they did a little bit of supply / demand analysis, by maybe only skinning a buck instead of a buck fifty, piracy might actually go down as the product would be *more* accessible (read cheaper) for the masses ?

Re:typical spin job

[Fred_A]

Maybe they should stop taking two martini lunches and doing coke in the back of stretch limos with starlets

If this kind of thing stopped, nobody would want to work in Hollywood.

Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[The0retical]

There was an article a while back (no I can't find it with the 2 minutes of searching I did) where a magazine compared the ticket sales of economic recessions during the 90's and early 2000's. The summation of the article was that even with major blockbuster films, like Starwars ep 1, Hollywood made less money than the year before because times were good and people were doing things besides going to the movies, but in economic downturns they actually made more money. The theory was that audiences will attend movies to distract them from all the problems that they have instead of stewing in them.

I'll post it if I can find it but the laziness is running deep tonight.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[HemlockSoup]

The theory was that audiences will attend movies to distract them from all the problems that they have instead of stewing in them.

I have also heard of this. I believe it was in one of my High School history classes.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[PitaBred]

I don't agree with that theory. I'd say that going to a movie is simply cheaper than other forms of entertainment. People want entertainment no matter what the economy or what's going on. That's why births tend to spike 9 months after a days-long power outage. Not a whole lot else to do to entertain yourself ;)

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[gmhowell]

That's why births tend to spike 9 months after a days-long power outage. Not a whole lot else to do to entertain yourself ;)

While it is an entertaining idea, it is false.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[Anonymous Coward]

Attending the movies is one of the more expensive forms of entertainment available, especially for a family. You can buy 2 or 3 DVD's or hire 20 or 30 for the cost of taking your family to the movies for 2 hours.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[definate]

That's because Hollywood produces inferior goods. A double entendre if ever I've heard one.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[Anonymous Coward]

It is false when it comes to the great blackout in NY in 1965. Generally speaking, though, I think this is a true statement.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[darthflo]

On a related note: A few days ago on of the local papers had an interview with a guy responsible for a rather large water purification plant. Apart from emphasizing once again what one should or shouldn't flush down the toilet, he remarked on there being spikes in the number of condoms they filter out right around the time of power outages. Just a random anecdote, but it's sourced from the guy who should know best.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[gmhowell]

[citation needed]

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[gmhowell]

Only if the guy routinely samples the water and counts condoms.

Similarly, there is no observable correlation between cycles of the moon and crime.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[darthflo]

He doesn't sample the water, but from what I've gathered he analyses the contents of the rake type thing that filters out condoms, cardboard pieces and whatever else shouldn't be flushed but still is and ends up in the treatment plant.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[Lord Maud'Dib]

Same with alcohol sales.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[Pikoro]

I don't know about everyone else, but when I went to visit a Navy base a while back, I ran into a girl I knew in high school. She was around 9 months pregnant.

I asked her about the baby and she said that she was having a hard time getting an appointment at the local Navy Hospital (this is in Japan) because most of the military wives were all pregnant at the same time.

Basically, every time the boat comes in, all the wives get pregnant and then the husbands ship out again. The hospital is basically unused between deployments.

I can't imagine long power outages not causing the same effect.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[mayko]

I can't imagine long power outages not causing the same effect.

Other than those two situations being entirely different. Not seeing your significant for extended periods of time is hardly the same as being bored with your wife all day with no power. Also I would assume the average married couple has sex at least a few times a week* a power outage, even sparking some extra sex wouldn't necessarily create a noticeable trend.



*Full disclosure: I am not married.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[Hurricane78]

While snopes.com is an entertaining idea, it is false.

Re:Hollywood Traditionally Does Well In Recessions

[gmhowell]

Whenever I walk, I do not slip off the face of the earth. I cannot imagine the earth being round.

Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[eldavojohn]

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

Someone should make an anti-anti-piracy ad with the same exact thing except when they look up they say, "I can't feed my family ... because even though my employer posts record revenues, the justice system makes you are a perfectly legitimate scapegoat."

Odds that the profits from this revenue make it back to the people who genuinely need it to keep the system healthy? Slim to none. Executive producer gets more executive while life risking stunt double gets poorer.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[TubeSteak]

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands

In the USA, pretty much everyone 'backstage' in the movie business is part of a union.
That's why so many movies are made in Canada, Prague, or other random foreign countries: lower labor rates.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in LA a lot of companies have gone under because Hollywood pretty much pulled out.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Canada, Prague, or other random foreign countries"

Its good to know that geography teaching is US schools is reaching such high levels, despite the constant job losses!

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Reed Solomon]

canada and australia have unions too.

its mostly just maximizing the value of the dollar, cost of supplies, etc. also getting the best deals on appropriate locations.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[John Hasler]

> Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my
> family."

And you believed it. Sucker.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[PitaBred]

Yeah, how stupid is he, not knowing that Canada is a state?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[selven]

Indeed. Everyone knows that being a country requires you to have some non-beaver residents.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Cryacin]

Yeah, they were just hired actors the whole time!

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[rockNme2349]

You wouldn't download a car!

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Dragonslicer]

Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

If I remember correctly, the amusing part of that is that the only ones that get paid royalties are the big-name groups, like the writer, director (I think), and actors. I don't think any of the construction workers, camera operators, or costume designers get anything other than a straight salary.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[kkwst2]

I think they were referring to the fact that Prague is actually another planet.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[dwywit]

There's a spreadsheet you can download from the Screen Australia website - it's called the "standard short film budget" (there's one for feature-length, too).

People like writer, producer and director are "above the line" items, and everyone else is "below the line".

All the "below the line" items start at union award rates, and "above the line" items start at 10% of the budget (i.e. add up everything else, then add 10% for each person in that category). It's only a starting point - obviously anyone with a name or reputation can negotiate whatever they want, but I (the producer) am only obliged to offer you (key grip) the award rate. If I (the producer) want you (director), I should offer you at least 10% of the budget. I might also offer you a share of royalties, or even some merchandising income.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[shark72]

"If I remember correctly, the amusing part of that is that the only ones that get paid royalties are the big-name groups, like the writer, director (I think), and actors. I don't think any of the construction workers, camera operators, or costume designers get anything other than a straight salary."

This confused a LOT of file sharing enthusiasts back when those ads were running. You're right, of course, that the trade and craft folks are paid on a salary, but the straw man here is assuming that the ads were trying to imply otherwise.

The logic employed by the MPAA is that piracy reduces sales, which in turn leads to cost cutting in the industry, which in turn leads to fewer films being made (ie. studios taking fewer chances on risky, smaller productions) or cutting costs by employing fewer people or moving productions to other countries.

That theory in itself invites enough debate without having to throw in the "the salaried employees have already been paid" straw man.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[xous]

eh?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Lord Maud'Dib]

Wasn't it deemed a dwarf planet recently?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Aceticon]

Here's a suggestion:

Scenario:
Movie studio office, 1930's style. Large expensive looking desk, semi-naked woman lying in it. Big fat movie executive wearing a 1930's style suit, holding a large lit cigar in his hand sitting on a chair behind the desk. Behind him, a window shows a sunny Californian day, with some palm-trees and an expensive sports car visible.
Around the office, other similar looking man are sitting in sofas surrounded by beautiful semi-claded women. Expensive looking sculptures and paintings are spread all over the office (possibly including one or two well known paintings).

Action:
Camera pans around the office, centers on the executive sitting in the chair with the desk (and woman) in front and the window behind.
Executive snorts a line of coke from the woman's belly, turns to the camera and says:
"I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[jedidiah]

> Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and
> other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and
> doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of,
> "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."

Simply assinine.

No one is going to respond to self serving preaching. This the dumbest form of
an attempt to persuade people imaginable. It's really sad considering the fact
that it's Hollywood we're talking about here.

None of the preaching or moralizing should even be visible.

Simply give these guys some credit and a little spotlight and let people know
that it's more than just about overpaid stars and j*ac*ss whiney directors.

The (sympathetic) blanks should fill themselves in. The audience should be led
to the desired conclusion in a manner that makes them think they came up with
the idea themselves.

A good "behind the scenes" segment would also be a lot more entertaining than
the dreck that they should before movies now.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[jedidiah]

> That theory in itself invites enough debate without having to throw in the "the salaried employees have already been paid" straw man.

It's not a straw man.

Past a certain point, YOU PERSONALLY are not going to benefit from any more sales of the product even if YOU PERSONALLY contributed to it's production.

Either way, it's probably not going to matter. A bad film is going to bomb and a good film is going to make profits for the studio that they studio will never admit to. Piracy won't change that. All Piracy does is inflate the sense of entitlement felt by the high level management at the studio. They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value.

Piracy primarily skews the percieved value of the work.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Dragonslicer]

The logic employed by the MPAA is that piracy reduces sales, which in turn leads to cost cutting in the industry, which in turn leads to fewer films being made (ie. studios taking fewer chances on risky, smaller productions) or cutting costs by employing fewer people or moving productions to other countries.

I'm sure that would be the logic that they use, but the main point of this news item is that it's completely false.

And since I'm not an expert in philosophy and logic, I'd be curious to know what part of my statement is a straw man. The initial statement (assuming the person posting it is correct) was that the manual labor workers weren't getting paid enough money because of people illegally obtaining copies of the movies that they worked on. My response was that it doesn't matter how many people pay to see a movie and how many obtain it illegally, because the workers have already been paid the only salary that they would ever get from that movie. Of course you could try to argue that reduced sales would lead to less work for them, but the report of record income seems to counter that pretty well.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[fulldecent]

... and yes, that's the way it should be.

Who would these anti-anti-piracy ads appeal to? Telling people to stop watching movies they want to watch? Or political activism to get people to lobby TPTB to create another "czar" to regulate more things?

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[shark72]

"Past a certain point, YOU PERSONALLY are not going to benefit from any more sales of the product even if YOU PERSONALLY contributed to it's production."

You're correct -- but that's not the argument that was presented.

There may be some confusion over my use of the term "straw man." I refer to the logical fallacy; defined as misrepresenting an opponent's position.

When those ads started airing, the retort from lots of piracy enthusiasts here on Slashdot was something to the effect of "last time I checked, all these set painters and other guys in the ads don't get points off the back end, so piracy doesn't effect them! They've already gotten paid!"

It's a straw man because the ads were not stating that the craft/trade people were paid based on the sales of a film, and thus the point, as misrepresented by Slashdotters, was invalid. That's exactly how to construct a straw man: misrepresent your opponent's argument and then tear down that misrepresented argument, and not the actual argument.

"Either way, it's probably not going to matter. A bad film is going to bomb and a good film is going to make profits for the studio that they studio will never admit to. Piracy won't change that. All Piracy does is inflate the sense of entitlement felt by the high level management at the studio. They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value."

It goes both ways. Most pirates claim that they would not have purchased the product anyway, or they claim that their piracy might actually improve sales of the product. A few pirates do openly admit that they pirate to save money, but -- again -- they seem to be in the minority.

"They mistake demand for the product at the ZERO price point as real value."

It has a certain value that's larger than zero, and less than the retail value of the total number of pirated copies. Everybody has their opinion on what this value is, and since nobody can truly know, everybody's opinion is valid.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[shark72]

"And since I'm not an expert in philosophy and logic, I'd be curious to know what part of my statement is a straw man."

Sure, I'll be glad to help.

"The initial statement (assuming the person posting it is correct) was that the manual labor workers weren't getting paid enough money because of people illegally obtaining copies of the movies that they worked on."

Correct -- but you may be misinterpreting it by adding "from royalties" after the "paid enough money" statement.

"My response was that it doesn't matter how many people pay to see a movie and how many obtain it illegally, because the workers have already been paid the only salary that they would ever get from that movie."

And that's the straw man there -- the movie industry wasn't claiming that the salaries of the union folks who worked on a particular film were scaled by the sales of that film. If they were, then it would be an easy argument to shoot down, because it is simply false.

So, you ask, what is the actual argument they were making, as opposed to your straw man version? You've actually put it better than I could:

"Of course you could try to argue that reduced sales would lead to less work for them, but the report of record income seems to counter that pretty well."

Not only have you correctly stated the point of the ads, but you've also come up with a defensible argument against it -- without having to resort to a straw man. And that was exactly my point -- it's easy enough to use evidence to cast doubt on the film industry's position, without misrepresenting their arguments.

I hope this helps.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Dragonslicer]

I think my wording just wasn't clear. My original intent was essentially to argue against the advertisement using proof by contradiction. There are only two possibile ways that an average worker could earn money from a movie: straight salary and roaylties. If workers can't make enough money from salary, it would be because there's less work for them. The only way that people illegally obtaining movies could lead to less work is because the studios aren't making enough money to continue creating new movies. The box office record contradicts that premise, though. Since there isn't a decrease in work resulting to less salary, the only other way people would be losing money from the movies is because of decreased royalties, which the workers don't receive. Therefore, if I've covered all the relevent branches of this logic tree, there's no reason for the workers to be losing money, and the advertisement is a blatant lie.

Re:Proposed Anti-Anti-Piracy Advertisement

[Nefarious Wheel]

You wouldn't download a car!

Heh -- nice link, I liked that.

Actually though in the reasonably near future you might be able to. 3D printers - Fabbers - are becoming a lot more sophisticated. We'll probably be able to download a car before we get one that flies.

Although the piracy issue would be interesting - imagine Honda inserting square wheels into the torrent as part of their IP protection campaign.

Going to the movies is different than buying one

[LockeOnLogic]

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Unbelievable growth

[easyEmu]

To me, it is remarkable that for an industry that has been around for more than a century, is this large, and has become so integral to the lives of North Americans, that somehow, a growth rate of over 11% is achievable.

10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[Anonymous Coward]

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[wbav]

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

You read slashdot and have a girlfriend. I think most will excuse you for being whipped.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[arb phd slp]

Which the inner geek in me embraces Star Trek but oddly the girlfriend would not go with me to the theater to see so I got it on dvd.
We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

My wife loved the new Star Trek and she wouldn't be caught dead going to Twilight. Sucks to be you.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[R3d M3rcury]

We did go see Twilight god help me got being so whipped.

No wonder you're an Anonymous Coward. Dating 13 year old girls...tsk tsk...

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[Ethanol-fueled]

The new Star Trek was a hip prequel done right. Unlike that other "Star" franchise that ruined their legacy with wooden acting and "goo-goo ga-ga" infantilism.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[PitaBred]

I don't know about that...

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[ravenshrike]

In all fairness, the average actor in the new SW was probably better than in the old. That being said, the fact that Hayden Christiansen was out-acted by Mark Hamil was pretty sad(Hamil makes a pretty good voice actor, but damn he couldn't act).

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[GodfatherofSoul]

I never had a problem with *any* of Hamill's performances.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[Anonymous Coward]

FAKE! No woman would move into your mom's basement with you.

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[haruchai]

I'll give you a pass on being whipped if you got blown after seeing Twilight with her.
If she suggests that you read the books so she can debate them with you - and you do - then she's the one
with the penis ( if you're living The Crying Game, don't tell us, please ).

Re:10 Billion and only one movie I liked

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here.

Buying slavery, one movie ticket at a time.

[sehlat]

Or does anybody really believe that NONE of that money gets given as "campaign contributions", salaries for "lobbyists", ACTA negotiators, dinner with politicians, or other persuasive measures?

Adjusted for Gold-based inflation...

[Dausha]

A different link:

"The expansion in world film revenues since 1970 has grown from $1.2 billion to over $15 billion annually according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)."[link]

So, we have 10 billion mentioned, but another reference to 15 billion.

In 1970, an ounce of gold went for 35. Today it's 1,100. That's 31 times higher. So, in 1970 dollars (gold), the movie industry made about 320 million (@10 billion) or 483 million (@15 billion). That is forty percent (@15 billion) or 27 percent (@10 billion). I'm not saying they lost money, but that inflation is a killer.

[link]: http://www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/dystopia/mcauley/filmcost.html

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation...

[Endo13]

Yes, because gold's value will always remain constant, right?

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation...

[PIBM]

Gold value skyrocket while there are recession. In 2009, the gold price went up around 25% (in USD) while there`s been a general deflation of the US market. You should use the inflation, which takes into account much more different values to compare year to year.

Re:Adjusted for Gold-based inflation...

[Katchu]

And look at the run-down hovels those starving folks live in--must we force them to bike to the studio? Oh. The horror.

Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[brit74]

From the article:
"The 2009 total was aided by a 28 cent increase in ticket prices from the year before to an average $7.46.

The total number of tickets sold, or admissions, is expected to reach 1.4 billion, up from 1.34 billion in 2008. Still, that figure is not expected to break the record 1.6 billion tickets sold in 2002, said Hollywood.com Box Office."

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:
2002->2009 = 9.2% Growth in 7 years, 1.3% per year (using the $10 billion number, not the $9,782.4 for 2009)
To put that in perspective, 1.3% is less than the growth of inflation.

In other news, the number of AIDS patients is higher than ever, and yet, the average lifespan continues to grow. I'm sure we all can see the correlation here: AIDS = longer lifespans. Torrent Freak spins reality even more than FOX news. I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Culture20]

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices. Ticket sales are down 12% since 2002. If you look at a long-term graph of ticket sales, you can see that it's been basically flat in the 2000s, compared to upper single-digit or double-digit growth nearly every year between 1970 and 2000. It's pretty much been stagnant since 2002.

Here's some numbers showing the trend:
2009 - Total Gross $9,782.4
2008 - Total Gross $9,630.6
2007 - Total Gross $9,663.7
2006 - Total Gross $9,209.5
2005 - Total Gross $8,840.5
2004 - Total Gross $9,380.5
2003 - Total Gross $9,239.7
2002 - Total Gross $9,155.0
2001 - Total Gross $8,412.5
2000 - Total Gross $7,661.0
1990 - Total Gross $5,021.8
1980 - Total Gross $2,749.0
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

1980->1990 = 83% Growth in 10 years, average of 8.2% per year
1990->2002 = 82% Growth in 12 years, average of 6.8% per year
Then, *mysteriously*, something happened around 2002:

Nine... *The audience leans forward, waiting for Myoral Candidate Lois Griffin's next word*
Eleven. *Raucous Cheering* It was near the end of 2001, and people were sheepishly afraid of gathering in large groups (except at church). Once they stared renting DVDs more at home, they realized that they liked it better.

Or, maybe it was the advent of the HDTVs

Or: The reason ticket sales are down 12% since 2002? Higher ticket prices.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[wtbname]

Sooooo....

What you are saying is that the Movie Industry made more movies, and more money than ever before, despite their claims of piracy hooligans destroying their business, but that it's all an illusion based on your rigorous statistical analysis, and out of line reference to the horrible disease, AIDS.

???

Profit?

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[DerekLyons]

The reason for the higher revenue? Higher ticket prices.

Higher compared to what? Are your statistics corrected for inflation?

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a pretty sweet home theater setup that cost less than $2000. Its more convenient and a much higher quality experience to watch blue-ray and dvd movies at home. I think the 12% drop is lack of interest.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[wtbname]

So...

What you are saying is that instead after the most movies made ever, and the most profit ever, the evil movie pirates are destroying their busniess STILL, based on your rigorous statistical analysis and totally out of line reference to the horrible disease, AIDS.

???

Profit!

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[spiffmastercow]

Have you seen the shit they put out in the last 7 years? Small wonder...

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[RobVB]

I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

I've seen what happens when websites become fans of the pro-ninja spin. It's not pretty either.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Anonymous Coward]

In your chart there, I see about 2500 growth every 10 years with very little variation. It's a little trippy to think it quintupled in 30 years actually.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Falkentyne]

Sometime around 2000/2001 is when ticket prices started jumping and I stopped going to the theater. The only reason I go now? 2 for 1 tickets through my credit card and even then I'm not sure it's worth it. I'm paying about $11 to $12 by buying the tickets online to get this "deal" otherwise the price of the tickets would be $22 plus paper/ink costs. I remember going to see the movies in LA back around 2001 and paying $8/ticket and thinking to myself what a fucking rip Los Angeles was.

Now It's $10 - $11 everywhere around here (Orange County, CA / Los Angeles, CA). Why pay for overpriced tickets with yelling kids when I can BUY the movie for less? I can have a couple friends over, pop the movie in my dvd player/bluray player and watch it on my 46" lcd tv with a gin & tonic in one hand and tasty pizza in the other while sitting in a reclining couch.

If they dropped the price of movie tickets I'm sure you'd see an increase in ticket sales and a higher profit due to the volume of movie goers. More people in the theater = more profit for theaters as well due to concession sales which are way overfucking priced too. Seriously? $4 - $5 for a large soda? That's like three 2 liter bottles WITH CRV (what a rip that is). Man... who's the pirate now? Hollywood = butt pirates trying to rape everyone.

/rant

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[JAlexoi]

Correlate the ticket prices to average spending on multitude of items in absolute terms. People like to think in absolutes. And even though the ticket prices are lower in relative terms, they might seem too high to the average person on the street.
And let us not forget that the last decade was the decade of scare tactics.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[amRadioHed]

Blame the MPAA, they are the ones who want us to believe gross revenue is a meaningful measure of film success.

They are all too happy to crow about the latest crappy film making record gross which of course has nothing to do with the fact that ticket prices have doubled in the past 10 years.

If they want to use gross numbers to inflate their success, I think it's fair game to use the same numbers to call them on their BS.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Pastis]

I would like more information:

* number of available seats in the country per year
* average cinema fill rate per year
* number of people owning a home cinema
* average salary
* average amount of money spent by people on fun activities (movies, games, internet, phone) per year
* average age of people going to the movie

there are so many factors.

Here are some questions to ask yourselves:

* do people have more or less money available to use on movies ?
* do people use their money differently because of other more meaningful activities (games, communications) ?
* do people prefer to rent by a DVD/blueray and watch it home with friends and a beer instead of going to the movie ? (cheaper, friendlier)

Sure piracy has some effect. But everything ?

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Anonymous Coward]

2002 Also happened to be the year that the cheap Chinese DVD players flooded the US market.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[wvmarle]

Maybe the stagnation of growth means the industry (finally) reaches it's saturation point, where it becomes fully mature, has captured nearly 100% of the market, and just doesn't have room to grow? Like what happened to Microsoft about a decade ago? Still selling a lot - but just no room to sell even more, and for the market being saturated, actually starting to lose sales as soon as competition arises.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you why 2002 was such a banner year for ticket sales:

1. Spider-Man (2002)
2. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
3. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
5. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
6. Signs (2002)
7. Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
8. Men in Black II (2002)
9. Ice Age (2002)
10. Chicago (2002)

Has there been a year since with movies with such box office clout?

It's more about product than anything else. Give the people what they want and they'll gladly line up and shell out their $10. It's not rocket science and you don't have to be a Slashdot regular to figure it out.

Hollywood has been making crappy movies lately.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Slashdot wasn't such a fan of the pro-pirate spin.

There's a difference between "pro-pirate" and "anti-big media policy".
I think /. tends to be more of the later.

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[DarthVain]

"Or: The reason ticket sales are down 12% since 2002? Higher ticket prices."

Agreed, when I have to get a short term loan to go see "Old Dogs" something is seriously wrong.

I don't even want to think what it costs a family of 4 or 5 to go... maybe that is the REAL reason for the mortgage crisis!

Re:Torrent Freak not telling the whole truth again

[Culture20]

I don't even want to think what it costs a family of 4 or 5 to go... maybe that is the REAL reason for the mortgage crisis!

A friend of mine tells me that it's close to $100, including fuel. I witnessed a babysitter/nanny tell the three children in tow that they couldn't watch "Cloudy with a Chance for Meatballs" because the only one available was the "3D" version, and it was too expensive. She mollified them with a promise of ice cream. See MPAA? Your real enemy is frozen sugared dairy.

Why would anyone go to a theater?

[tjstork]

I think its been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to a movie and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to movies. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get video content, well, that's been lame since TV was invented and it gets lamer every year.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[spektricide]

Because to some of us movies are fun. Sorry if my idea of fun is lame. I could theorize that any attempt to replicate a theater experience at home is also "lame" but that would be rather presumptuous.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Iceykitsune]

Where Can I buy an IMAX setup, since you seem to have one, judging from your comment.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[couchslug]

"I could theorize that any attempt to replicate a theater experience at home is also "lame" but that would be rather presumptuous."

It could be quite interesting and not "lame" at all.,,

Invite as many derelicts as you can find over for whiskey and popcorn, then hand out prepaid cellphones so they can enjoy them while watching the movie.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[operator_error]

I think its been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to a movie ... The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get video content, well, that's been lame since...

People have 'dates' with others every now and then, and the cinema is a nice place to go during the process. In fact the cinema can turn dating from a potentially-stressful process into a more relaxed, passive and entertaining process. It can even provide something worth discussing afterwards.

During these 'dates' ambiance is a valuable quality, so perhaps dinner in a restaurant and a film at the cinema trumps what the basement-media-room affords. At least as an alternative for some folks.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[apoc.famine]

Wait....a "date" is where you go and sit in the dark, so you can't see the other person, and don't talk to them for an hour or two? Really?
 
Mine tend to be more along the lines of inviting someone over for dinner, talking, rubbing elbows during prep work, laughter over wining and dining, and enjoying the ability to see and talk to each other the whole time.
 
I'd make a joke about typical slashdot ideas of dating revolving around not seeing or talking to the other person, but that'd just be rude.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[kklein]

Soo... Sitting in a room full of people eating anonymous food, followed by sitting in another room full of people--this time with clear physical boundaries between you--trumps sitting in a room with just you two eating perhaps home-cooked food, followed by sitting in another room alone snuggling on a sofa, with an even more intimate room within 10 seconds' walking distance?

Sorry. You fail at dating.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[gmhowell]

So, wait, you and your potential mates are so insecure and immature that you constantly need to be giving and receiving physical contact and interaction? You haven't grown up enough or don't appreciate the other person enough to just be in their presence from time to time? In the words of Mia Wallace: "That's when you know you've found somebody special. When you can just shut the fuck up for a minute and comfortably enjoy the silence."

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Draek]

Correction: a "date" is where you go and sit in the dark, so other people can't see you doing things other than talking for an hour or two.

Not that the sibling post is wrong, mind you, there's also something to be said for simply enjoying a personal pasttime alongside a person you appreciate and ocassionally engaging in some silent communication, but they're also *such* great places for letting a teenager's hormones run wild my definition cannot be easily dismissed ;)

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[tjstork]

Sorry. You fail at dating.

Dude, this is Slashdot : "Would you like to play dungeons and dragons with me..."

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Maxo-Texas]

For bonus points, you got with a girl you just met and at some point*, the people on the screen get naked and have sex... that always felt a bit weird.

* have you noticed that most movies have sex at 40 minutes in? The exception is if sex is a big focus in the movie so it opens with it.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Culture20]

Soo... Sitting in a room full of people eating anonymous food, followed by sitting in another room full of people--this time with clear physical boundaries between you--trumps sitting in a room with just you two eating perhaps home-cooked food, followed by sitting in another room alone snuggling on a sofa, with an even more intimate room within 10 seconds' walking distance?

Some women like to snuggle in public (and a movie theater counts). Also, the seats in most theaters have retractable arm-rests these days. Choose a theater close to one person's home.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some of us aren't asshat smug dipshits who site in a dank cave and wonder why people want to be out amongst other people. Some people like to eat in restaurants too, which have been obsolete since food was invented too. Other people like to go to the gym instead of work out at home. Others like to go to the mall instead of order online. Other people like to talk face to face instead of on the phone. Weird huh. All these stupid people.

Perhaps its the fact that you are a dick and nobody wants to go see a movie with you.
 

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the moment, IMAX > Home Theater > Typical Cinema, in terms of AV experience.

Typical Cinema has crappy angle subtended and the speakers tend to go into overmod frequently, completely killing any surround sound experience they might've been able to offer.

Home theater also gets a boost due to overall experience, too: the only one talking during the film is you, you can pause the film to get snacks or discharge former snacks, the floors aren't sticky, you can sit where you want, and you know exactly how much fecal coliform bacteria is in the seat.

Just because it's not IMAX (which, frankly, is pretty lame compared to OmniMAX. It's just too bad few things are filmed in it) doesn't mean that the regular theater has much to offer compared to home theater any more.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Invite as many derelicts as you can find over for whiskey and popcorn

Er... maybe you should avoid those skid row porn theaters. There are some rather nicer theaters, and if you catch a matinee you can iften have an almost private showing.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[Jay Clay]

I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to see live music and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go see live music. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get audio content, well, that's been lame since radio was invented and it gets lamer every year.

I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to the beach and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go to the beach. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to go swimming, well, that's been lame since pools were invented and it gets lamer every year.

(insert another example of technically receiving info while ignoring the experience of it ad infinitum)

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[tjstork]

I think it's been maybe 10 years since I've actually gone to see live music and I'm just drawing a blank as to why anyone else actually does go see live music. The whole idea of having to travel somewhere to get audio content, well, that's been lame since radio was invented and it gets lamer every year.

I'm sure that some people make a big deal out of going to see some band play live, but I don't see the point of that either. For me, going to concerts, going to movies, is just a waste of money.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[drinkypoo]

For me, going to concerts, going to movies, is just a waste of money.

I don't see how you can equate one with the other. If you can't get into the excitement of a concert, with a bunch of other people excited to see the same act you are, and be a part of that crowd, then you've got some issues relating to other humans. Sitting in a dark room watching canned media is one thing, and I understand the lack of appeal there, especially since the asshat factor tends to be dialed up to 11. I find I can rarely go to a movie any more without having to threaten someone with rectal implantation of their cellphone. Concerts, however, are not only where mosh pits are, but also a great energy rush.

I don't think you have to appreciate live music to be human or anything, but it seems pretty strange to me. Not thinking it's worth fifty bucks to see flavor of the month is, of course, quite reasonable. By economies of scale, if anything it should be cheaper to see a bigger act, albeit perhaps from the nosebleed seats. Yet arena shows tend to be some of the most expensive. Not that I would ever go to one, unless I was front and center — on some gift tickets, of course.

Re:Why would anyone go to a theater?

[jedidiah]

Anymore, any movie I fail to see at the theatre is due to procrastination more than anything else. There is just no sense of urgency. So I put it off and before I know it they are advertising the DVD and BluRay already. So I can procrastinate some more and perhaps get that movie in the Walmart bargain bin or just put it in my Netflix Queue and see it... whenever.

All entertainment has to compete with everything else that can distract a person.

This includes 50 year old TV shows or 200 year old musical compositions or the latest Wii game.

They will still blame the "pirates"

[JavaBear]

Because they didn't make 20 billion.

Re:They will still blame the "pirates"

[betterunixthanunix]

They will claim a $10bn loss, in fact, since they did not make that $20bn.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Bad movies & remakes hurt dvd sales & box office more than piracy.
As does hollywood accounting.
As does their constant desire to waste ridiculous amounts of money on SFX & overpriced actors.

This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[mmkkbb]

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs of making more movies than ever before. Never mind that making more movies means spending more money and that movie budgets are also increasing.

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[Dunbal]

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs

      Cry me a fucking river. Next you're going to tell me that Lord of the Rings actually DID lose money, in fact it almost bankrupted New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson shouldn't have been paid a penny.

      Hollywood is all about make believe. It's unfortunate that they manage to convince so many people about the vast hardships involved in making movies, when just about any former actor or singer can become a successful director or producer (wait, what? I thought it involved a lifetime of study!?). I mean, I know it's a real drag to have to work for a few months to earn a few million dollars and all... perhaps if Hollywood stopped inflating the costs of movie production by giving away free cash, then movie production wouldn't be so expensive.

      I really have no sympathy for them. The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors. This doesn't give Hollywood any sacred virtue, just because the uneducated are willing to worship large faces on a screen as gods. It certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate laws. Yet the current situation serves to underline how many morons are elected to office or hold positions in the judiciary.

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[sopssa]

The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs

      Cry me a fucking river.

Do you understand the basics of economy? Spend more, you usually bigger sum back too. It doesn't mean the income percentage is a lot larger. This is even more true when everything has to be larger, better and more impressive all the time.

The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors.

Who are YOU to judge what is worth some bucks for OTHER people and what they might find fun? I also hope you understand that not everyone who works in movies/tv business are filthy rich. Sure, if you're an idiot, you might think that everyone makes millions per movie for a few months work, but it really isn't so.

Even if you don't enjoy it, let other people make their own decisions on what they want to spend their money on and if they want to spend the night out with their girlfriends.

I get off your lawn now.

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone uses gross profit when they talk about Hollywood because of Hollywood accounting. Kinda hard to make a Net Profit when ALL Gross Profit is written off as Expenses on future movies.

And as a reminder for non-economists : Gross profit - Expenses = Net Profit

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[JAlexoi]

About the worth of a buck, I like what Warren Buffet said: "If people donated money as easy as they throw them away, we would live in a much better world." (Rescent FT Magazine)

Re:This analysis is totally ridiculous.

[Dunbal]

Who are YOU to judge what is worth some bucks for OTHER people

      Oh I can judge alright. What I can't do, in a "free" society, is try to stop them. But I can judge. Who said living in a democracy meant abandoning sanity?

      You are free to spend your money on whatever you want. I will manage mine as I see fit. And I will ALWAYS shake my head when some slightly pretty girl manages to make in a summer what it took my grandfather and his brothers 40 years of hard work to do building stuff that obviously has far LESS value to society, like dams, highways and airports, instead of prancing about in front of a camera for 2 hours of film.

      In case you're wondering, I'm not the least bit jealous. I have, and my children have, and my grandchildren will have more than we need. I'm just puzzled at where society puts its values. Glitter and purchased thrills are obviously the most important things for the insensate.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Ceiynt]

Have you never been to a store around this time of year and looked at the DVD sections? That is one of the first sections that get destroyed by the soccer moms.

Litigation *is* the business model.

[d18c7db]

The continued litigation by the various **AA agencies has nothing to do with protecting their revenue stream from piracy or whatever other valid sounding official excuse they use. It is simply another revenue stream. As long as they generate some income through bullying and intimidation, by abusing the law, or other dubious extorsion practices, they will continue to do so as just another way of "doing business".

"Piracy"

[dikdik]

I think that a lot of this "piracy" business that the MPAA and RIAA is a load of crap. For example, one of the loudest voices against Napster (before the became "legit") was Metallica. In one of the tape inserts for one of their albums (I forget which one), they claim outright that they used to trade tapes back and forth and copy them all the time before they made it big. So, it is OK when they commited piracy, but it isn't now when they are a target of it? I'm glad their last album sucked....

Re:"Piracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also okay for the CRIA to make and sell compilation and live track CDs from artists and just place them on a "Pending to be notified and paid" list. Of course they are now facing a 6 billion dollar lawsuit for this but are claiming that they shouldn't have to pay this.

Re:"Piracy"

[mirix]

Just like disney... if everything had infinite copyright, they wouldn't be able to rehash it for toddlers and put infinite copyright on it. hypocrisy reigns.

Re:"Piracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that a lot of this "piracy" business that the MPAA and RIAA is a load of crap. For example, one of the loudest voices against Napster (before the became "legit") was Metallica. In one of the tape inserts for one of their albums (I forget which one), they claim outright that they used to trade tapes back and forth and copy them all the time before they made it big. So, it is OK when they commited piracy, but it isn't now when they are a target of it?

I'm glad their last album sucked....

Just the last album?

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

This is actually true. I saw NO MOVIES on the big screen this year due to my financial situation, but we did download a few, on NETFLIX. The same with TV Shows (Legend of the Seeker in HD). What hasnt hit NETFLIX we have DL in HD and used a streamer to go to the Xbox360 or PS3, and then if we felt it was worthy of buying we did so at AMAZON when on sale, or BESTBUY / Wal-Mart.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[dkf]

People are still willing to pay to go to the movies for the superior screen/sound and crowd experience. Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Overall people don't mind going to movies. After all, if the film is good and the projectionist is good, then it is (or should be) a great experience. It's not the same thing as the recorded music business, which was never about providing the total experience like movies have been for ages. I suppose a better parallel to a movie is a music concert. Again, it's about the whole experience and people don't mind paying for that. (Well, most people anyway. Enough to make it potentially very profitable.)

The threat posed by the internet to movies is not really piracy. It's that it is a different, new thing for Joe Sixpack to spend his entertainment money on. Is that a problem yet for the movie industry? Probably not, but that's where the real issue is. Note that this is not a legal threat. It's a threat to the very basis of getting such a large proportion of the national entertainment spend. Hollywood have long tried to counter this with things like film tie-ins, special websites, etc, with varying success. Will that change? No idea.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Jeff Carr]

Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Yes, and it should.

If I want to pirate a movie, I can go to a single site, find multiple options (1080p, 720p, ipod, ect) for just about every movie in existence. All of which are "in stock" and most of which I can download to my computer in less time it would take to drive to the store. The movie is presented to me without unskippable ads, without worry of scratching or losing, and can be archived without taking up space on my shelf.

All of this is free.

As most technical people are very aware, if I'm selling a product in a marketplace where a virtually identical product is available, I need to add value in order to get people to purchase through me instead of the competition. Adding value for movie studios is easy. They are selling legal copies and supporting the people who made the movies. The added value is already there. However, to add value, they need to provide an equivalent experience.

Currently, they aren't even close.

Such utter bullshit - My rant

[dikdik]

This back and forth about piracy and morality and P2P is such bullshit.

Everyone -- yes, every goddamn one -- knows that the Hollywood/MPAA (and the RIAA music fight) boils down to one thing: money in the pockets of executives. That's it. It's only about technology insofar how that technology impacts the bottom-line. It's not about art. It's about making sure a select group of executives make sure they can keep the mortgage payments on their Bel-Air mansions and can keep memberships in their country clubs. That's it. That's where my, yours, and everyone else's dollars are going: to buy some titanium fucking Big Bertha golf club for the peabrained asshole who's been crowned king of the other peabrained assholes working beneath him.

Valenti wants to make sure the cash keeps flowing into his pocket and into the pocket of every other overpaid, dim-bulb, "I can green-light this" executive motherfucker working the valley.

You want goddamn immorality? It's the entertainment industry and the people that run it that are at the very foundations of the "immorality" of piracy. Forget Janet Jackson's nipple. Forget Powell's sudden decision to attempt to regulate *cable* television today (!). Forget the fact (and I'll digress here) that the fundamentalist assholes that have gone to see Mel Gibson's "Passion" claim that it's a fantastic movie yet in the same breath decry Janet Jackson's nipple, the state of marriage, and the violence in contemporary culture -- overlooking perhaps that the Passion is more "violent" than any number of Grand Theft Auto games strung together and more "explicit" than any svelt little nipple hiding behind a sun-shaped nipple medallion. The hypocrisy of Valenti and his immoral executive motherfuckers is astounding. It boggles the mind.

Re:Such utter bullshit - My rant

[JAlexoi]

I know they(entertainment industry execs) are assholes of an enormous magnitude, but most of them are not stupid or dumb. It's like G.W, his outer shell was there to make him seem an idiot, just to fool most other idiots.
I like the expression: If you're so smart, where are your millions?
I, on the other hand, can tell where my millions are, and why I said no to having them.

Dollars..

[ko9]

There's a lot of talk about inflation in the comments, but most people seem to forget about the US Dollar not being what it used to be, on the world stage. And Hollywood is definitely a worldwide business. For example, if Europeans spent two billion Euros on movies 5 years ago, Hollywood would've made two billion Dollars. If Europeans spent the same money on movies now, Hollywood would make three billion instead.

Re:Dollars..

[zippthorne]

Europeans get all their movies from the US?

Seriously though, In Europe, do the pretentious movie snobs watch imported American films as if they're all some kind of deep, meaningful works of fine art?

Re:Dollars..

[Jedi Alec]

Depends a bit on the country but yes, generally speaking, 90%(number drawn from ass, don't ask for citations) of the stuff you see in cinema's over here comes from the US.

Re:Dollars..

[Anonymous Coward]

American movies are mindless entertainment and the those made in Europe almost never aren't worth watching. (Even compared to the American ones ;)

The snobs mostly go to theater.

And in other news...

[meekg]

Growth in retail sales proves that shoplifting is beneficial for shop owners.
Also,growth in highway fatalities proves that seat belts are dangerous,
and growth in violent crime clearly fingers video games.

Seriously, slashdot, this is the weakest argument ever.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, highway fatalities have been in constant decline per year per mile driven almost for at least fifty years. Even in absolute terms ignoring population growth and increased driving, highway fatalities are at there lowest levels in 50 years. Violent crime has also been down in the last 15 years.

Re:And in other news...

[Spad]

Who said anything about it being beneficial? That's a rather piss-poor strawman.

The argument is that despite Hollywood decrying piracy as being be downfall of the movie industry, that they were losing money hand over fist, that ordinary people in the industry were losing their jobs left, right and centre because of it, that the entire economy of America was in danger because of these dangerous pirates, who were probably also funding international terrorism and all paedophiles as well, they've somehow managed to make record profits during a substantial recession.

Re:And in other news...

[AcidPenguin9873]

Wasn't there a story on Slashdot recently about how movies != music when it comes to piracy? I honestly haven't heard all that much from the MPAA recently, it's all been from the RIAA. And rightly so: even if everyone pirates every movie, the MPAA has two things working to its advantage:

1. It controls distribution for the first 1-6 months of the movie release - while the movie is in theaters, before it hits DVD/BluRay - so it doesn't really have to worry about pirates for a while (and no, some crappy camcorder in a theater does NOT cut it for me or for most people).
2. Even if it didn't control distribution and it sold the raw movie bits immediately, MPAA can still sell a "theater experience" with a huge screen and awesome sound, something that most people do not have.

RIAA, on the other hand, does not and really cannot control distribution. They sell the raw bits, which a lot of people can replicate for $0.

Does that ...

[PPH]

... $10 billion include the overpriced popcorn?

Remember these Anti-Unionist are Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember these Anti-Unionist are Democrats

Remember that when they yell at you that all the ReThuglican are exporting jobs overseas.

Its what profits _could_ have been made.

[mjensen]

All the talk will be "It would have been better without piracy", which would unfortunately be correct....

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

They added value by making the damned thing in the first place, you fucking imbecile.

Good job.

[Xeno man]

I guess the RIAA and MPAA boycott is going really well. Keep it up guys.

$10B in revenue and not a dime in profit

[symbolset]

Hollywood accounting.

correlation is not causation

[Weezul]

I find piracy an unlikely culprit largely because the quality is just so damn low usually, people use tv piracy mostly for time shifting and "nation shifting", but everyone uses TiVo whenever available, and movies start out higher quality, so your losing much much more.

I'd bet the single biggest reason is that television and home theaters have cut into their sales.

There are now more shows that more people *perceive* as high quality, more shows are designed to addict people (X Files, Lost, etc.), comedy shows have diversified, reality tv took off, and the array of channels is now staggering. We make a big deal about all the computer graphics used in movies, but Hollywood always had the best effects guys, while computer graphic have dramatically improved tv's options too, and proportionally more so.

Conversely, we've radically advanced the home theater during the last decade, i.e. everyone got surround sound, good tvs and DVDs players, while people rarely choose their cinema based upon technology. Another unprecedented shift has been how Netflicks, DVD vending machines, and TiVo all make tv vastly more convenient than movies, which leads to the big killer : TiVo, Netflicks, etc. let people watch tv with friends. Yes, that's right, movies loose even on the social appeal!

It's also true that ticket prices have inflated while wages have not inflated, but I doubt that's significant next to the sheer onslaught of technological and cultural forces pushing us away from cinemas and towards home entertainment. Internet usage will also have directly cut into ticket sales some too, especially among young people, but who knows how much.

I might buy an argument that movie piracy was hurting DVD sales of course, simply because many people want specific movies on their laptop for travel, but again we're seeing a "home theater" like effect where convenience overshadows other concerns. Just consider, virtually every time you see people watching movies on a train, they're most likely tolerating the poor quality of a pirate version simply because they don't know how to successfully rip their own DVDs!

Simple

[__aazsst3756]

Make good products, people buy them. Simple really.

Doubt it

[__aazsst3756]

The theaters get to keep very little from ticket sales, almost all of their profit is from refreshments.

Re:Doubt it

[JAlexoi]

Exactly the opposite is what the studios say.

Re:Doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the opposite is what the studios say.

And why should we believe the studios over the theater operators? Given the open secret of standard "Hollywood accounting" I wouldn't be surprised if the studios were screwing the theater operators just as much as everyone else.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Nimey]

By superior do you mean "volume's too loud" and "a quarter of the audience are self-centered assholes"?

That's an innovative definition you've got there.

A scary realization

[jsac]

Microsoft routinely grosses more than Hollywood does at the domestic box office.

Hmm, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison because that's Microsoft's international gross income compared to Hollywood's domestic income. But still ... I thought it somewhat eye-popping.

Box Office is a Small Part of the Equation

[bman08]

This is great news for the small percentage of movies that get theatrical release. But DVD numbers are in the toilet, and that's a critical revenue stream for all your low budget and indie stuff. I'm loathe to imply that piracy does or doesn't have anything to do with the problem but this article does not paint an accurate picture of where the movie business is at.

It Has Happened Before

[b4upoo]

I used to manage theatres and the industry is quite aware that hard times are good news in the movie industry. The Great Depression was a boom for theatres. These days a lot of the gate may not be in box office receits but from other modes of distribution.
              The theory was that normal people under great stress report to theatres as an escape. Conversely more deviant personalities resorted to bars or gambling during hard times.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US."

This the same logic that said vhs would hurt box office movies.

Inflation?

[loshwomp]

Are those record receipts adjusted for inflation, or is this bad, sensational reporting?

Re:Inflation?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is bad sensational reporting, but then what can you expect from reporters. the revenue increase is due to ticket prices which have risen 10-20%, actual movie attendence has been flat since 2000 and while revenue may be at a peak the profit and attendence certainly is not.

Pay Czar for Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the economic issues that we are dealing with, why doesn't the public have a problem with Hollywood. I was visiting some friends on thanksgiving, so I tagged along to watch Ninja Assasin. I payed $8.50 to get in and the theater was packed. I didn't have enough time to get something to eat before the movie so I bought a bag of popcorn and a large drink $16.45(I was really hungry). I then watched a movie that I would have normally turned off in the first 30 min or at least be distracted easily if at home. I feel that after that experince I have payed my fair share to hollywood for every movie that I have ever downloaded or will download for the next 10 years. That money could have gone to so many better things than an actor or director or writer or whoever got a share. We waste our money on trivial things and don't have a problem with people taking an assload of our money for theater, sports and other things. Government caps on actors and athletes as well as the executives should be considered when reports of these kind of earnings come out. The problem is we shouldn't need the government to keep us from wasting our money. If there wasn't another movie made ever again then I believe the world would be better for it. If all the athletes were average people just playing a game without sponsors and multi-million dollar contracts then how much more productive could our society be. Why waste the resources on a movie or game when we have real problem that need solved. I admit that I download movies to watch when I have nothing better to do but we live in a society that watching a movie or a game is the best thing to do most of the time.

Subject

[Legion303]

Why, it's almost as though consumer video recording devices didn't kill the industry at all. How strange.

Michael Bay should direct this...

[incognito84]

I love how Hollywood just sends Michael Bay out with the single mission to fill cinemas.

If Hollywood really just wanted to make a quick buck, they'd just throw together a trailer full of tidal waves, nuclear bomb test footage, explosions, robots, Michael Bay's name, then release the obligatory blockbuster movie trailer with such delightful quips as: "in a world... explosion... awesome... teenage cleavage... het-er-o-sex-u-al... stuff you liked when you were twelve..."

It doesn't even matter if there is an actual movie. It will make BILLIONS.

Re:Michael Bay should direct this...

[greyhueofdoubt]

Way ahead of you

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/12/michael_bay_does_that_which_he.html

This is why god doesn't talk to us anymore.

-b

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Trogre]

After spending a lot of time watching DVDs on 100Hz TV sets, I actually find the juddery screen experience at the cinema is often (but not always) inferior to home. I know, they want to keep it that way because apparently 24fps is much more "artistic" or some BS, just like B&W photography and monophonic sound apparently are.

And I'm not subjected to people hooting and throwing popcorn at home, for the most part.

To be fair...

[SharpFang]

before we happily claim their profits are climbing, could we overlay their profit graph with inflation graph?
Today's $10mln isn't the same as 10 years ago.

Re:To be fair...

[DragonTHC]

sorry bud, that's not $10mln.

It's $10bln Billion with a B

Re:To be fair...

[SharpFang]

$10bln today isn't worth the same as $10bln back then just as well.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[xous]

I haven't set foot inside a theater since around 2000.

Reasons:
Cost: $15 for a ticket. $10 for a drink. Fuck that.
Movie Quality: I haven't seen anything worth more than the two hours to watch it in a long time.
Comfort: I ain't going to sit in a crappy chair with who knows what on the seat when I can sit at home with similar quality picture and audio.
Time: Why do it on their time tables when you can turn the shit on anytime you want and pause the fucking thing any time you want?
MPAA: I'll buy used movies before I'll pay them a fucking dime.

Just google it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just google it. It used to be called "payment in kind".

If you need to use inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to use inflation to show a loss, AND IT'S A RECESSION, how bad can the losses be???

PS the answer is "no", but the increase is higher than inflation anyway.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[martyros]

As most technical people are very aware, if I'm selling a product in a marketplace where a virtually identical product is available, I need to add value in order to get people to purchase through me instead of the competition. Adding value for movie studios is easy. They are selling legal copies and supporting the people who made the movies. The added value is already there. However, to add value, they need to provide an equivalent experience.

Imainge if when you bought a DVD, it had no copy restrictions, it contained on it versions formatted for copying to a hard drive and for various smaller players (such as the iPhone), and instead of the "FBI WARNING: IF U STEEL THIS WE'LL COME AND GET YOU" (which only people who have already paid see), you saw one of the main actors saying, "Hi, this is Denzel Washington. I realize that you could have downloaded this illegally, so I just want to express my personal thanks to you for supporting the movie industry by opting to pay for this DVD instead. Please enjoy the show."

Piracy would probably only go down a few percent, but you could probably sell the DVDs, but overall DVD sales would grow, because people would be happy buying a DVD, instead of feeling screwed (as I always do).

television was supposed to kill the movie house

[circletimessquare]

that's when we got the new aspect ratios in the theatre, to get movies to stand out from television in the 1950s

then the vcr was supposed to kill the movie house. of course, the vcr/ dvd market eventually turned into a huge cash cow for the studios

and the now internet is supposed to kill the movie house

i call bullshit. with all of the cell phones and crying babies, the movie house is still going to rake in the cash. for many reasons, not least of which movies are actually better when viewed in a group (the gasps, the shrieks, the laughter, the shared experience: it heightens your enjoyment)

and now they are rolling out imax and 3D to stand apart from home theatre set ups (even though it seems home theatre set ups are now poised to get 3D). but even if they didn't do that, i have no fear that the movie house is never going to go extinct, no matter what happens in the technology/ legal landscape surrounding movie media. even if they released movies for free online at the same time as they did in theatres (not that i think that is ever going to happen) i still think movie house will rake in the dough

when you pay for a movie house ticket, you paying for, and receiving more, than just a movie: you are getting something psychologically akin to going to church in terms of being part of a community, and that means something that means the movie house will be with us for centuries

heck, sitting here near broadway in manhattan: the medium shakespeare worked in, live performance on a stage, is still alive and going gangbusters as well

but you always hear these weird simpsons comic book guy type assholes here on slashdot saying in high holy indignation that they'll never NEVER go to a movie house again because of popcorn prices/ rude people/ etc. of course, they're probably going to a movie house next week in spite of their haughty declarations, but even if they aren't ever going to a movie house again, this population of people is extremely small (however loud they are on slashdot) so they don't mean anything, there's always oddly acclimated types

Re:television was supposed to kill the movie house

[DinDaddy]

The movie going demographic has become highly skewed to the teen and twenties crowd (hence the emphasis on keeping PG-13 ratings rather than R).

Anecdotal, but most past-their-twenties adults I know DO go to movies far less often than 10 years ago. And I think DVD and big TVs have a lot to do with that. Does for me.

The theaters near where I live flat out suck (the mall). Scratched prints, horribly adjusted sound. Noisy patrons. Now, I live within 40 minutes of Westwood/hollywood, and for some movies I will drive down there to see something in a correctly operated theater, but that is 2-3 times a year. For everything else I buy the DVD or blu-ray, Or rent it online. And the same is true of virtually every neighbor I have.

The exception is moms taking their under 12 kids to the movies.

So I don't think it's just simpsons comic book guys.

USA minimum wage

[tepples]

Minimum wage in many countries actually increases with inflation.

This is about the domestic box office, so other countries aren't involved.

Who said "other"? The U.S. Congress occasionally revises the minimum wage upward. It's just not automatically linked to the Consumer Price Index; that would just build automatic inflation into the system as a floor on the price of inputs.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[jedidiah]

> They added value by making the damned thing in the first place, you fucking imbecile.

No they didn't. They made something that they think will enhance their own control over the experience.

They didn't sell what the customer actually wanted. They sold something that the customer might actually settle for, or not.

Maybe not in NY but it worked in QC

[Fastfwd]

I was out of power for 27 days in Quebec's cold winter. I did not myself make kids at the time but there really was a baby boom in Quebec 9 months later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Ice_Storm

Re:Maybe not in NY but it worked in QC

[gmhowell]

[Citation Needed]

I didn't see any reference to birth rates nine months later in the wiki article you linked to.

Good point and a Godwin

[tjstork]

If you can't get into the excitement of a concert, with a bunch of other people excited to see the same act you are, and be a part of that crowd .. then you've got some issues relating to other humans.

You know, its funny, but, I -get- that part of it. But I get much more of that by going to a Phillies baseball game or an Eagle's football game. I'm actually somewhat socially thwarted by being caught up in the whole roar of things was enormously fascinating to me. It's just amazing. At some point, I might actually even make a video game where you are sitting at Nuremberg during a Hitler rally, and I bet if I made it real enough, anyone playing it would be swept up in it and giving the old salute o' doom.

So I guess I could see that some people prefer seeing big live acts, but for me, I always preferred my live bands smaller and more local, and in smaller venues like bars and clubs. Like, for those in the new, Mr. Stress in his prime at the Euclid Tavern in Cleveland was pretty much the tops for me.

Re:Good point and a Godwin

[drinkypoo]

Well dude, that IS going out to see live music. It doesn't matter if the crowd is 30 or 30,000, the same principles are at work. I used to go every Thursday to see the Asylum Street Spankers at the Electric Lounge, a venue so small they could play without amplification. I've seen them in larger venues, and the feel is just lost :)

Now if only they could make good movies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Idea: Take George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, and a lot of other insufferable big-name actors and they'll pull off the biggest heist of their lives... robbing not only the American goer, but movie goers all over the world. The goal: To build an elaborate movie under the guise of being the next great movie, making sure it's as terrible and ridiculous as possible. After all the big budget advertising they reap the sales profit from their intellectually devoid cash-cow, and escape to their multimillion dollar homes, millions of dollars richer.

The only problem? No one has made this movie already, therefor we can't remake it.

John Kerry's missed votes

[Oh Gawwd Peak Oil]

just look at how many Senate votes that John Kerry has missed in the past 12 years. Something like 1000 or more a year according to Fox News.

Did Fox News really say that? I guess with their usual level of honesty I wouldn't be surprised.

In fact, the number is really 623 total since 1989, about 9% of the total, and most of them were during his campaign. At other times he was usually around average. See this link.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[delt0r]

The last DVD i rented didn't play on my 3 computers or the DVD player properly. Guess where i got a copy that played just fine on all of them.

Why rent/buy something that doesn't work.

I get my money back when something goes wrong at a cinema.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the impact is far less than they claim, I would imagine pirated movies hurt dvd sales more than box office, at least in the US.

Yes, and it should.

If I want to pirate a movie, I can go to a single site, find multiple options (1080p, 720p, ipod, ect) for just about every movie in existence. All of which are "in stock" and most of which I can download to my computer in less time it would take to drive to the store. The movie is presented to me without unskippable ads, without worry of scratching or losing, and can be archived without taking up space on my shelf.

All of this is free.

As most technical people are very aware, if I'm selling a product in a marketplace where a virtually identical product is available, I need to add value in order to get people to purchase through me instead of the competition. Adding value for movie studios is easy. They are selling legal copies and supporting the people who made the movies. The added value is already there. However, to add value, they need to provide an equivalent experience.

Currently, they aren't even close.

This!!

I used to buy all my movies and would again if I had anything even remotely close to the convenience of downloading them. Currently I have my entire movie collection on my server with a moded xbox to access them and watch them on my TV. If I want to watch a movie, couple clicks with the remote and there it is. No finding the case, no cases without disks, or wrong disks in them, no FBI warnings or 20min of commercials.

Should any site have any movie (read: Not limited selection) with the ease of pirated movies and the quality of having the DVD in a simple, non-drm, commercial free format, I would gladly pay for the movies.

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[wvmarle]

Going to the movies should be compared to visiting concerts or theatre. It is the experience. Personally I prefer concerts over movies, and either over the recording (or radio resp. TV broadcast).

Recorded music may be compared to DVD. You buy a copy, play it at your leisure at home or on the go, but it misses the crowd, the band on stage or the large screen, etc. It's not the same.

Any numbers by the way on pop concert visits? Not just the big guys but also local club ticket sales. Could be interesting as well.

$10B+ and counting

[Anonymous Coward]

No Avatar yet!

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[TheQuantumShift]

Agreed. I saw Transformers in the theater, but I didn't like it enough to buy the disc or download it. And the experience was bad enough that I didn't bother with GI Joe or the second Transformers movie. On the flip side, I saw Star Trek in the theater, loved it, immediately downloaded it and watched a couple more times before buying the Blu-ray when it came out. Did I just put a grip out of work? I think not.

And the next bits...

[Mathinker]

And the next bits:

"Wait a minute, we'd better make sure that those extra profits are on other company's books!"

2 things for sure

[hesaigo999ca]

I know it sounds like a lot, but remember that 10 years or so ago when titanic came out, it grossed over 1billion dollars with all its
sales and marketing. Back then this number would mean a lot, however I find now, this number is not conclusive to be compared to that of many years ago, of course it breaks records, we pay 15$ to go see a movie, where as back then it was 10$ or even 8$, so like saying 10 years ago I paid 50 cents a loaf of bread, and now I pay 1.50$, and the bread market is breaking record sales numbers,
is silly.

However, I do agree that it goes to show, the whole thing with the movie companies saying hey are losing all this money because of downloads is pure BS, I never would have paid money to go see The Hangover, but I would watch it if I downloaded it for free.
Does that mean they lost a sale, absolutely not! As well, there are movies that you just have to go see on the big screen (Transformers) that are meant for such a giant screen to get a full effect....I would pay even if I downloaded it for free.

It's all relative, what isn't is them making you feel bad for downloading something you never would have paid to go see in the first place.

Foreign box office

[TheSync]

In 2008, Hollywood foreign box office was also around $10 billion, with Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal, Fox, Sony Pictures and Disney collecting more than $1 billion outside the US.

TV is also highly internationalized. A show like "House" that may have 10 million viewers in the US has over 70 million viewers outside the US.

So if anyone tells you "the US doesn't export anything these days", take them to see "Avatar" :)

What's the context?

[StikyPad]

Increased revenue and decreased profits are not mutually exclusive events. If I increase the price of a can of soda by 10% then my revenue goes up, assuming that sales remain constant or decrease by less than 10%. But if my cost to provide that can of soda went up by 12%, then my profit goes *down* in the same scenario, perhaps even negative.

Also, the profit can increase in absolute terms for the industry as a whole while each player experiences decreased profit individually. This can happen simply by increasing the number of players. And before you infer that increased participation indicates healthy growth, consider the real estate market.

In short, these figures are meaningless without context, and certainly not worth using as the basis for any rational argument.

You/re the "hollywood"'er here You ne'er do well'

[Anonymous Coward]

SymbolNOBODY, first? See subject-line above, & what you said below (& my reply to it):

You said what's quoted below from you, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30428430

"It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game. - by symbolset (646467) on Monday December 14, @01:15AM (#30428430) Journal

I took offense to the BOLDED part... & ALL you EVER seem to have is "ad hominem" based attacks on people, not the points they make. So, my reply in the URL below was simple (and logical):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30428430#30430244

Additionally, "symbolNOBODY"? Well - the day you can make something like this (& that got you PAID for it, & that has done as well for others online):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=b861a743aa23c4568b7d73e07ef7ecec&showtopic=2662

That's also gone over 250.000 views worldwide in 1++ yrs.' time online, & across 15 forums where that guide for Windows Security has been made either an:

1.) "Sticky/Pinned" thread
2.) An "Essential Guide"
3.) Rates 5/5 stars (etc.)

AND, gets "feedback" like this from users that have applied it:

----

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28430

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"...recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual. Now I don't recommend this for the average joe, but it if can work for a kids PC it can work for anything! Now, i substituted OpenDNS and activated the Adult Content filter with them for this kids computer. I know its not perfect, but will catch over 99.5% of said sites."

and

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10f9ba9ad5ff990aaae1e7ec91f593a2&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)"

Thronka - forums member @ xtremepccentral.com

----

THEN, when you have done so, on THAT account? THEN, you can talk!

A

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[An Onerous Coward]

If I want to pirate a movie, I can go to a single site, find multiple options (1080p, 720p, ipod, ect) for just about every movie in existence. All of which are "in stock" and most of which I can download to my computer in less time it would take to drive to the store.

The selection is great, but how do I turn off the Swedish subtitiles?

Re:Going to the movies is different than buying on

[Anonymous Coward]

You at least live in the States for that warning to make sense. To us in Asia it feels retarded to see that knowing the FBI as no jurisdiction out here!

escorts sevilla

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi sir,
                      i see your site
                                                                              Here is my experience and i would like to share with all of you...And I hope it would be very interesting to all of you..
    escorts sevilla

    Thanks you