Piracy Fails To Prevent Another Box Office Record (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The movie industry has reported global box office records reached $38.4 billion in 2015, up 5% on 2014's total, according to the MPAA's Theatrical Market Statistics report. The U.S. and Canada turned in $11.1 billion with international box office revenues hitting $27.2 billion. "I'm proud to say that the state of our industry has never been stronger," the former U.S. senator, MPAA chairman and CEO Chris Dodd said. "To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the movies has been greatly exaggerated," Dodd said. It begs the question whether or not piracy is truly killing the movie business -- the MPAA insists it is. According to Dodd, the box office would be more healthy to the tune of $1.5 billion if piracy could be brought under control. Some possible theories to achieve such a goal would be based off making content more readily available to the consumer. Napster co-found Sean Parker has a Screening Room project which hopes to bring first-run movies into the home via a set-top box. Though it has a trick up its sleeve: Customers prepared to pay the required $50 to watch at home would get two tickets to watch the movie in the cinema, which could either boost or at least maintain box office attendance. The Art House Convergence (AHC) said it "strongly opposes" the plan, warning it would only fuel torrent sites and piracy. National Assosciation of Theatre Owners chief John Fithian said, "More sophisticated window modeling may be needed for the growing success of a modern movie industry."

Comments

"More sophisticated window modeling"

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright at its finest. You people make me sick.

Re: "More sophisticated window modeling"

[Anonymous Coward]

What the flip does that even mean?

Re:"More sophisticated window modeling"

[ArmoredDragon]

This isn't really a copyright thing so much as it is somebody using their influence to control distribution.

Think like how you have to buy a car through a dealership, or how in certain regions and industries you can't buy labor without paying the local mafia^H^H^H^H^H union.

Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument here seems to be that piracy is okay because the movie studios are making plenty of money anyway. It's like saying that if I steal a couple million dollars from a billionaire, they're making plenty of money anyway so it's not really theft. Theft is theft is theft. And it's wrong.

Re:Flawed logic

[suupaabaka]

Where's the theft? If I steal your car, you no longer have the car. If I copy your album, don't you still have the album? I hate how people paint copyright infringement as theft. I'm not making a moral judgement here, but call an apple an apple.

Re:Flawed logic

[MightyMartian]

That's not the argument at all. The argument is that the claims that any film industry financial problems are due to pirating is rubbish. That's not a defense of pirating, that's a statement that the MPAA's frequently floated claim is garbage.

Now, the music industry, on the other hand, is another matter. I guess it comes down to the point that people think music is worth less than movies.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with you, someone will point this out soon anyway so I'll just move it along. If you steal money, the person you stole from now has less money. If you make a copy of a movie, nothing was "taken."

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less a matter that piracy is Ok, and more a matter that stopping piracy will cost too much in terms of liberty in trying to block possible misuse of anything that could possibly be illegal

We could completely prevent speeding and stop just about all traffic accidents if we required that someone walk ahead of every vehicle carrying a red flag (a law that was actually on the books still in some places not that long ago), but the cost to society that such rules would impose would be FAR worse than the benefits.

In terms of Piracy, if all hardware was locked down and no general purpose computers were ever allowed to view video or play audio, that would eliminate piracy (except for books), but the cost to everyone, INCLUDING the industry would be many orders of magnatude higher than the cost of piracy.

They say that the Box office would be 1.5B more if there was no Piracy. How much would it drop if there was no digital version of the works available at all? I'll bet that home access to the works in question result in FAR more than 1.5B to the industry.

Never mind all the other things that they would accidentally prevent from existing in their efforts to block piracy.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. One successful film isn't representative of the finances of a studio or the entire industry. There are plenty of films that aren't profitable but the studios can afford them because of the films that are successful. It's like walking into a store and shoplifting a DVD, then trying to justify it by saying the store had already sold a hundred DVDs and made plenty of money, so they won't miss that one. It ignores that the store is able to stay in business and sell many other products that aren't as successful because of the products that sell exceptionally well.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Supreme Court of the US already ruled that
the government can take your money and not harm you.
While being an upstanding citizen myself and disagree with
that, I respect their lawful right to rape you broke.

CAP === 'anodes'

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how to try to conflate copyright infringement with the actual theft of a DVD.

Re: Flawed logic

[MightyMartian]

But studios have always had a mix of huge successes, moderate successes, moderate failures and colossal flops. Is there any evidence that that trend is worse now than it was, say, in 1963, when Cleopatra became one of the biggest and most expensive flops in movie history?

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's like walking into a store and shoplifting a DVD"

Idiot.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put this in different terms. The GPL relies on copyright to be enforcable. It's a digital product, not unlike a movie. You're saying that because copyright infringement doesn't deprive the studios of their copy of the movie and the movies are still profitable, no harm has been done. Why shouldn't I apply that same logic to software released under the GPL? If I take the source of GPL software and incorporate it into a closed source product that I sell, I'm not depriving the developers of the GPL software of anything at all. They still have the source code to their product, the same development team, and are still able to continue developing their software. I haven't taken anything from them. Why, then, should I respect the GPL? If copyright infringement of movies is okay, shouldn't copyright infringement of GPL software also be okay?

Re:Flawed logic

[AK Marc]

The argument is that piracy increases the income. If I cut your grass without your permission, that's a crime. Trespassing, or other things. If that action increases the value of your property, what's the complaint? That I did it without your permission, or that it gave you income?

The movie studios are the ones with the flawed logic. "Hey, you are increasing my income without my permission."

Re:Flawed logic

[sims 2]

I would go as far to say that the DRM they have added to everything already costs more than piracy.
Just in terms of time wasted things not working and general bull$hit.

Broadcast flag, HDCP, securom, oh and lets not forget the sony rootkits and so on.

Re:Flawed logic

[kheldan]

Let's say I have an eidetic memory for all I see and hear. Is the MPAA justified in seeking a court order legally preventing me from ever going to a movie, because my brain retains a perfect copy of it, that I can replay in my mind any time I want, as many times as I want? Haha, I can even give my friends a complete recitation of every line in every movie I ever go to, and describe for them in exquisite detail every scene. Do they have me blinded and made deaf, so I don't 'steal' their IP? Or do they just have me killed outright, because I infringe on their copyright just by existing?

Re:Flawed logic

[Voyager529]

The argument here seems to be that piracy is okay because the movie studios are making plenty of money anyway. It's like saying that if I steal a couple million dollars from a billionaire, they're making plenty of money anyway so it's not really theft. Theft is theft is theft. And it's wrong.

Agreed. Here are the bigger questions involved with the current setup:

1.) Copyright infringement is wrong, and should be punished. However, the present system is such that a conviction of copyright infringement can be a life-ruining event. As TFA shows, the MPAA is not making a compelling case that ruining the life of an infringer is reasonable. If the MPAA wants to make the case that downloading a movie from The Pirate Bay is akin to stealing the Blu-Ray from Best Buy, then make the punishment for downloading the same as stealing the Blu-Ray. Instead, the fines and criminal charges are seen as akin the professional counterfeiting and piracy rings in court.

2.) There has always been the concept of the public domain - where art goes after a certain amount of time, and can be used by anyone. Copyright first started with a reasonable length of time for authors to make money off their work as an incentive to continue creating. However, it's been extended to the point of absurdity - no video game released, or pop song I grew up with, will enter the public domain until my grandchildren are dead. Now, there are different ideas as to how long copyright *should* last (my personal belief is ten years, with the option to renew at the cost of 10% of the owner's gross income annually), but "two lifetimes" is generally agreed upon to be patently unreasonable.

3.) There's very little 'reasonable ground' to be had. Stealing $100 from a billionaire is wrong, but 'finding a $100 bill on the ground that is later determined to have belonged to a billionaire' is a different matter entirely. In the US, making backup copies of one's own DVDs and Blu-Rays for noncommercial use that are never otherwise shared is, legally speaking, subject to the same penalties as operating a for-profit piracy ring. The whole "digital copy" situation with movies is such that whether the digital copy applies to the customer or not is dependent upon which services are being used. It's impossible to legally view a movie on an Android device if it comes in a DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes combo pack, and nobody wants to standardize.

The MPAA's issue here is how royally fixed the game is in their favor, and a seeming unwillingness to come up with reasonable terms for things.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we agree. You are saying it's fine that I sell other people's software, right?

Re:Flawed logic

[tomhath]

If I hire you to play a concert and promise you a cut of the gate, but then lie about how many tickets were sold, did I steal anything from you? Same thing.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

So making a copy of money is ok then?

Re: Flawed logic

[TheReaperD]

Your arguments are complete BS. The film industry has always had films that lose money; long before the age of piracy. This is nothing new. What is new is that they can no longer produce a bad film and make their money back before the public gets wise to the fact that it is a bad film (the Ewe Boll business model). If your film is garbage, you're going to lose money on it, period. And your DVD argument is complete apples and oranges. Your example is theft, removing property from someone's possession without compensation. Copyright infringement is not theft by any legal system in the world because the original is still in the original owner's possession, no matter what the media industry tries to tell us. Even with that in mind, your DVD argument is still bogus because that is what every retailer who sells DVDs does. As long as they make money overall, they continue to sell DVDs and call it a success. Do they try to minimize the theft? Sure. But, they don't say DVDs sales are a bust because they had a small percentage of their copies stolen.

What the media industry is doing is looking at all the piracy numbers and saying to themselves "if we can turn all these numbers into sales, look at all the money we can make!" This is complete fallacy and their own internal studies have proved it. The most prolific pirates are also their highest-paying customers. What does this mean? That means they purchase a legitimate copy as well and they use piracy either as previews or for convenience. What they industry wants is for everyone to purchase multiple copies of the same content. No one in the world is going to go for this, regardless of what laws or actions taken by the industry or the governments that support them. Do all pirates own legitimate copies as well? No. But, the ones that don't are almost impossible to turn into legitimate sales, again, according to the industry's own studies. They either don't have the money or have some ideological issue with paying (even if it's selfish miserliness).

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft is illegal. Theft is usually wrong. But not always.

Stealing weapons from an enemy base is theft, but it isn't wrong. If you are putting your life at risk to save lives by stealing weapons from the enemy, that is morally lofty.

Also, theft is not copyright infringement. And copyright infringement is illegal, but has much moral ambiguity around it (some claim that the imposition of artificial scarcity is morally wrong, which would morally justify copyright infringement).

So, in sum:

1) Theft =/= copyright infringement
2) illegal =/= morally wrong
3) real life is complicated.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the theft? If I steal your car, you no longer have the car. If I copy your album, don't you still have the album?

Also, if I screw your wife, you still have a wife.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

True, that's how my wife and I roll.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

Whether or not it is "ok" bears no relevance to whether or not it is "stealing" or "theft". There are a great many things which are neither stealing nor theft, which are also not ok. But then, you knew that, just like you knew your logical fallacy was bullshit before you typed it.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument here seems to be that piracy is okay

So I did a search for "piracy is okay" in the summary, all of the linked articles, even the torrent freak comment section.

The only one place it shows a match is in YOUR comment!

Sounds to me like you personally are the only one person involved here that stated the words "piracy is okay"

If you really think piracy is wrong, then you need to quit saying it is okay to do. All of the rest of us think you are wrong for doing it.

Re:Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative. Consider the following anecdote, then take a nice grain of salt:

Intuitively, it reduces that income, because people who are pirating are not buying. Counter-intuitively, many people who otherwise would not buy because they can not return media they are not satisfied with pirate to sample, then buy. As far as music is concerned, I fell into the latter group for a decade and a half, then I started using Rhapsody and no longer need to do that. When it comes to movies? Nothing like Rhapsody exists for movies.

As a result, I pirated the hell out of Deadpool. I also went and saw it with a friend on opening night, with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, and intend to buy the Blu-Ray when it comes out. Why? Why would I pay for it if I've already gotten it for free? Because I rather enjoyed it and would like to encourage more of the same.

So, then, why not just buy all the movies I want to see? Simple. I want to support the ones I enjoy, and encourage more of the same; but I also want to not support the ones I do not enjoy, and discourage more of the same. How can I do that if I can't get a refund on the ones I don't like?

I mean, I can go buy basically any product not produced by a media company, try it, and return it within a reasonable time if I do not like it. That's why I, and many others, don't follow similar patterns with other products. We don't steal cars, then come back a week later to pay for them, because we can test-drive that car before we pay for it, and we get a warranty with that car so anything that goes wrong with it during the initial ownership period gets fixed; we can also turn around and sell that car to someone else. Buying a house, you walk through it, possibly hire an inspector to make sure everything is on the up-and-up, and if anything is misrepresented during the buying process, you have legal recourse and can get your money back (and then some). If I buy a gallon of milk, get home, open it, and it is spoiled, I can get my money back.

If I buy a DVD of a movie and the movie turns out to be crap, I can't return it, I can't get my money back, I'm stuck with the crap movie and I'm out my $20. At best, I can exchange it... for another copy of the same crapfest.

And, so, I pirate before I buy. For the past several years, that has resulted in much more piracy than purchasing; more recently, the tables are turning and I'm seeing the fruits of my labor, more and more movies are coming out that I actually enjoy and end up buying. Hell, I haven't touched a Disney movie in a decade and a half but I can tell you, having seen The Jungle Book illicitly, that's gonna be my first IMAX movie in over a decade and my 3rd Blu-Ray purchase this year (assuming both it and Deadpool come out in the next 8.5mo).

In my case, piracy certainly is increasing their profits, as I wouldn't be buying anything from them otherwise.

Now for the grain of salt: I am but one person. While I know there are many out there doing what I do, for the reasons I do it, whose actions do effectively increase profits for the studios, I also know there are many out there who do not. Of that latter group, there are many who would buy if they could not pirate, those are lost sales; and there are many who would not buy, no matter what, and those are not lost sales. We can ignore that 3rd group, who would not buy under any circumstance, as they represent a neutral position.

The question is, are there more people practicing pre-purchase piracy, like me? Or are there more pirating instead of buying?

And if the answer is the latter, are there enough more people in the second group than the first that the millions of dollars spent on anti-piracy measures (and lost sales from people who don't want to deal with that crap) represent a smaller number than what is lost (and I mean truly lost, as in not made up in post-piracy sales by people like me, and not pirated by people who wouldn't have bought anyway) to piracy.

Re: Flawed logic

[ShanghaiBill]

I love how to try to conflate copyright infringement with the actual theft of a DVD.

My company has DVDs replicated for 20 cents each. I am sure a big Hollywood studio pays even less. So if the DVD sells for $20, then 99% of the value is in the content, not the physical media. So "stealing" a movie online really isn't so different than stealing a DVD. The monetary difference is negligible.

Disclaimer: I watch pirated movies occasionally, because I am cheap and I know I can get away with it. But I don't try to rationalize it.

Re:Flawed logic

[ewibble]

Here I have taken money that you can show what you would have gotten, if it was not for the lie.

If someone watches the concert through the window, you have lost money only if that person would have gone to the concert otherwise. They may have, they may not have, they may go to your next concert because they liked what they saw.

Just because someone pirates a movie, and if this is stealing, and the law as consistent, for a criminal case you should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they would have paid for it anyway. I don't think you could even prove it beyond balance of probabilities.

You have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, is "stealing" intellectual property so much worse that we have to lower the standard of proof.

The answer is you are not stealing but you are committing copyright infringement which is different.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact the English dictionary definition of stealing is "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it", but we both know you already knew that before you posted your BS comment.

Oh, also, if I "steal" money electronically from your bank account, according to your logic it's not really stealing since I didn't physically deprive you of anything.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

Ah, but piracy isn't taking anything, it's copying. I can't return a copy to you, because the copy was never yours to begin with; nor did I take your copy in order to make mine. As for you taking money electronically from my bank account, that would be akin to me moving the data from your hard drive to mine; you can no longer access your data because I store it, just as I can no longer access my money because you stole it; that is not so with copying and, if it were possible, I'd have absolutely no problem with you copying the money in my bank account.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't "test drive" a Big Mac before buying one, and yet there doesn't seem to be a huge societal issue with either Big Mac theft nor Big Mac piracy. And if you're really so scared of spending money on something you may not like, you can always eat something else. You won't die without Hollywood movies or AAA video games.
Maybe media pirates are just entitled fucks?

Re:Flawed logic

[jedidiah]

If you screw my wife then you've attempted rape. Although more likely you've suffered grave injury and will bleed out before the cops catch up with you.

Movies aren't real property. They are copies. You can't have sole possesion of them like with real property.

Now if you can clone my wife and manage not to get yourself killed then you are welcome to try.

Re: Flawed logic

[jedidiah]

Software has no real value, only what someone is willing to pay for it. Now a bit of physical media has a cost associated with it. It's what the merchant paid for it. You will do real harm to a merchant if you steal any of their physical items.

You will do no damage to a copyright holder by copying their work.

Clearly you can't even devalue their work in the process. That's what record ticket sales demonstrate. What piracy actually happens does no harm.

Degenerate pirates and poor people are no real loss to the industry. If anything, they provide exposure and the potential for future sales.

If you want to prove real damages, you are going to need more than righteous indignation and wishful thinking.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it stealing to record a song off of the radio?

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying something may not have the undesirable effect of depriving the owner of the thing itself, but it can have other negative effects.
Pirating can (potentially - that's the whole point under discussion here) end up depriving the owner of the value of the thing they created,
if it results in insufficient interest in paying for the item. That's the whole point of copyright law. I'm always bugged by these analogies
to "regular" theft. Copyright violation is indeed different than stealing, but it is potentially similar with regard to depriving a creator or group of creators of
earned recompense for their effort.

And, I would absolutely have a problem with anyone copying the money in my bank account. If this were available for anyone to do,
there would be runaway inflation and the monetary system would collapse. That would be bad.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Flawed logic again.

The GPL allows you to copy and USE the software all you want.

If you SELL it, then it is infringement. But you are equating those who download and watch a movie, to those who sell bootlegs.

Re: Flawed logic

[youngone]

That's all true, some movies make more money than others, but where I live movies are funded by a $50 million (local dollars) government handout. The studios are also exempt from local labour laws (because that's good for the country).

These aren't local studios either, these are the big Hollywood guys, those ones making the record profits, because if we don't pay them to come here, someone else will.

Re:Flawed logic

[JoeDuncan]

If you screw my wife then you've attempted rape.

LOL - nope! It's only rape if she wasn't consenting...

Given that you appear to think of your wife as property, I would not at all be surprised if she consents... often and frequently.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get your money back at McD's, idiot.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck, I've heard pirates coming up with some spastic shit in the past to justify not paying for the content the consume, but you just snapped the plank. GET IN THE SEA, DIPSHIT.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not always depriving the company though. Most stuff I pirate, I would do without rather than buy it.

Re: Flawed logic

[AthanasiusKircher]

Pirating can (potentially - that's the whole point under discussion here) end up depriving the owner of the value of the thing they created, if it results in insufficient interest in paying for the item. That's the whole point of copyright law. I'm always bugged by these analogies to "regular" theft. Copyright violation is indeed different than stealing, but it is potentially similar with regard to depriving a creator or group of creators of earned recompense for their effort.

THIS.

I think copyright law is really screwed up, fines are at ridiculous levels, and stuff should go into the public domain after 14 years (perhaps 28 at most, according to the original copyright act of 1790).

But all of this quibbling over whether or not it's REALLY "theft" or not is just nonsense. Yes, it's not like taking a unique piece of physical property. On the other hand, in some circumstances it can deprive the copyright owner of significant profits from his/her work.

If you wrote an awesome software application, and right after you finished it, I sneaked over to your desk and made a copy of it -- and then proceeded to sell it to make a million dollars before you realized anything happened... and then you were unable to build a customer base when you tried to release it yourself, I think it's reasonable to say that I "took" something from you.

But according to GP's argument, I only "made a copy," so I didn't "steal" anything. The point is that theft is not only about the taking of an actual item, but potential loss of revenue from that item too. If you stole my business car and totalled it, I could bring a civil suit not only for the cost to replace the car, but potentially for any loss of income I had due to losing use of my car. That latter is cost is directly connected to the theft and trying to claim that it isn't "really" theft kinda misses the point of what copyright law was originally designed for. (Despite the fact that the current copyright system is totally broken, yadda, yadda, yadda...)

Re:Flawed logic

[jedidiah]

If I couldn't break their DRM, I would not have bought my rather sizeable collection of media. Content is really much more useful once it's liberated from physical media and DRM servers. It's more valuable to the customer.

Artistic megalomania blinds content companies to the truth of this.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the motion. Its okay.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have a problem with it if enough people copied enough money that your money was devalued.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, in 20 years this might be a real issue with cybernetic implants. Imagine you're sporting 2 retina cams and a terabyte of SSD in your noggin. Now what?

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also put me into the piracy is okay column.

Re:Flawed logic

[chipschap]

The above really gets to the point. It's not that record profits make copyright infringement or piracy somewhat "okay." And even though copyright infringement and theft aren't the same thing, neither one is legal, and the fact that the movie industry has made a lot of money doesn't change that.

It does put the lie to their statement that piracy is killing them. And this matters, again not because piracy is right, but because the MPAA and others are using their bogus argument to justify all sorts of oppressive and draconian measures to "protect" them. It's clear that they hardly need "more protection" or more enforcement tools or harsher laws. They're doing fine.

Piracy isn't right. But neither is taking away the rights of legitimate buyers, restricting the legitimate freedoms of innocent people, and all the rest.

Re:Flawed logic

[ewibble]

Yeh but you haven't stolen my wife have you? You as long as it was consensual haven't even done anything illegal (in a lot of countries).

A better analogy would be, if I was pimping my wife out, and you had consensual sex with her on her on time, and didn't pay me. Did you steal from me?

I may be annoyed that you had sex with her, but I only lost money if you where willing pay if she didn't have sex with you in the first place. She maybe she was so good that you are now willing to pay (free sample).

Disclaimer:
I am in no way suggesting pimping anyone out is ethical, my wife (and all people) are in no way anybodies property. I only used it because it was the example given.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the argument should be whether copyright infringement (piracy is such an outdated and pathetic term for this) actually improves sales - which some believe it actually does.

Your examples are wrong anyway - it's nothing like stealing. It's maybe like copying your test answers so that I pass a class. Which basically has zero effect on your grade, but since I have gained something without you benefiting from it... it makes you angry. There might be ripple effects from the feat, but it's hard to tell if they're good or bad, as I am really just cheating myself, and I'm probably going to "pay the price" later down the road one way or another. Karma is a bitch... get over your whiny bullshit.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting example... because you might be doing him a service and he doesn't realize it. He might not like it, but did it really do any actual harm? Perhaps his wife is a happier person as a result, and he is enjoying life a little more because of it and doesn't realize it.

Also, since when can a husband demand what his wife can and can't do with other people in this country (the U.S.)? If he doesn't like it, he should certainly divorce her, but he can't forbid her from doing it. What a bullshit example you provided.

Re: Flawed logic

[NiteMair]

WRONG, you clearly don't understand GPL.

ANYONE can sell GPL software as long as any modifications they have made to it are released as GPL as well.

There is absolutely no restrictions on selling GPL software as long as you abide by the license, which states clearly that you must release all your modifications under the GPL license.

Re:Flawed logic

[AK Marc]

That's a very gray area you're treading. There is no proof that piracy affects the studios' income one way or the other. Clearly, it does, but it is impossible to prove whether it is a net positive or a net negative.

The correlation is quite strong. The greater the piracy, the greater the income. As overall piracy has increased, so has income and profits for MPAA members. Also, as piracy for RIAA members dropped, so did their income and profits. Ringtones are effectively dead, and CD/physical media is in freefall. Online sales are increasing. Music piracy is falling as well while the total music industry falls.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Except stealing it from the store means that store actually has one less available to sell, and the logistics and shipping cost to restock that missing disc is not zero. By not having that disc in stock, they may actually lose a real sale to a customer wishing to purchase said disc.

Copying something does not starve the the seller of the original merchandise - and there was also no guarantee that the person copying it would have ever purchased it, so it is not necessarily a lost sale either way. Removing a physical DVD has a higher chance of being a lost sale, and certainly costs the retailer time and money to report it and replace it.

Re: Flawed logic

[NiteMair]

Actually, I believe there is absolutely no law against making copies of money for your own personal use.

Feel free to make a bazillion copies of a $20 bill - as long as you don't then try to use them as actual currency, you're all good! Use them to wipe your ass, draw mustaches on them, build a house with them, do whatever you want.

Re:Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

Indeed, and I was not disagreeing with that position at all, just pointing out that it is merely one of two possibilities. I say we stop pirating altogether and watch the worms squirm. Just as soon as this year's summer flicks drop. ;p

Re:Flawed logic

[suupaabaka]

Where's the theft? If I steal your car, you no longer have the car. If I copy your album, don't you still have the album?

Also, if I screw your wife, you still have a wife.

...yes...? So what's your point, exactly?

Saying something designed to be inflammatory =/= providing a counter-argument.

Re:Flawed logic

[bipbop]

Since eidetic memory doesn't exist, this isn't currently an issue. You might consider taking this up with the Cyborg Rights Council in a few decades, though.

Re:Flawed logic

[AK Marc]

Some things can never be proven. It's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. It's just the correlation is strong enough that most people believe.. It would be unethical to perform a scientifically valid study. The same types of confounds exist for piracy. Forcing someone to pirate or not to then measure spending habits wouldn't work. For smoking it's unethical to force someone to smoke. For piracy, it'd not be piracy to legally serve something to them to watch their buying habits after, so measuring it would break it.

So the best we can do is measure and track the correlations. It was good enough to "prove" that smoking causes cancer, so why isn't it good enough to prove that piracy causes profit?

Not arguing, just theorizing.

Re:Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

And this is why it will never be proven one way or the other, and why the industry will continue to cry about it, all the way ro the bank. They probably write off a loss for every confirmed download, to boot.

Re:Flawed logic

[AK Marc]

They can't write off the loss because they "lost" nothing. You can write off the "loss" of a DVD because something is gone that was there before. One of the reason that piracy is so infuriating to them is that it doesn't exist. If I copy a movie on a portable drive, and give it to a friend, it's impossible for anyone to find out. So they can claim a loss, but not prove it or account for it. As such, they can't write it off, unless proven. So, they can write off a $10 movie, if they spend $10,000 suing someone over it, but they can't write off a $10 movie by counting the number of downloaders on Pirate Bay.

Re:Flawed logic

[kheldan]

In 'a few decades' we either won't have movies at all anymore, or they'll find some way to erase people's memory of them, so they have to pay to see it again once the memory fades into nothingness. Given their druthers I'm sure they'd love something like that to improve their revenues.

Re:Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument here seems to be that piracy is okay because the movie studios are making plenty of money anyway.

Nope, that's not the argument. Your understanding is flawed.

It's like saying that if I steal a couple million dollars from a billionaire, they're making plenty of money anyway so it's not really theft.

Nope, that's not at all what it's like.

Theft is theft is theft.

Theft is indeed theft. This topic is about copyright infringement, though. A different thing. Do try to keep up.

And it's wrong.

Theft is wrong, yes. You seem to be in the wrong thread. The discussion is not about what you think it is, or what you are trying to frame it to be.

Try again.

Re: Flawed logic

[Bert64]

Only you have to go much further to commit copyright infringement against the GPL...

Most movie pirates simply make copies of the existing movies and watch them, the GPL specifically allows you to do the same with GPL code.

Even most commercial pirates just produce copies of the movies and sell them, again this behaviour is explicitly allowed with GPL software.

There are few (if any?) pirates who take commercial movies and use the content to create new works which they try to pass off as their own, indeed this would be extremely difficult beyond minor mods or parodies.

Many people pirate because legitimate options are not available to them, or because the legitimate options are significantly inferior. Some people pay for the content, but then pirate it anyway because the pirate version is more flexible in some way (e.g. i pay for satellite tv which covers most of the shows i watch, but i generally prefer to torrent the shows because its more convenient for me)

Re: Flawed logic

[Bert64]

*can* *potentially* *may* ...

Copying something may have other positive effects.

Pirating can potentially result in increased sales too.

The whole point of copyright law was to encourage works to be produced by giving authors a limited period of exclusive use, these laws have now become completely corrupted to the point of absolute farce.

Re: Flawed logic

[Bert64]

If anything copyright terms should be much shorter now than envisaged in 1790...

In 1790 it would have taken years to print a book and get it widely distributed, today works can be disseminated instantly worldwide over the internet. Movies make all their money in the first year anyway, and being able to constantly re-release old stuff doesnt encourage any new works to be produced.

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are laws about it. Some printers/scanners will refuse to work with currency, forced on the manufacturers by the govt.

Re: Flawed logic

[stealth_finger]

So making a copy of money is ok then?

That's different, people don't go around trading downloaded movies and trying to pass them off for the real thing.

Re: Flawed logic

[stealth_finger]

The point is that theft is not only about the taking of an actual item, but potential loss of revenue from that item too.

Nice try but it's not. Theft is taking a possession away from someone without permission. It has no bearing what the item was worth or if there is any intention to sell it. As much as you may want it to be a copyright infringement is not a theft. If it was they would have called it theft instead of coming up with a new term.

Re: Flawed logic

[scarboni888]

This wasn't about 'one successful film'. The 'entire industry', as a whole, had yet another record-breaking year in profits.

Re: Flawed logic

[scarboni888]

The Fed does it all the time. And LOT, lately!

Re: Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with you to a point, if someone has no plans to pay to see a movie, why should they be allowed to torrent the movie on or before its release date. For sure before its home release date, and get to see it? If I have no plans to see a movie in the theater, I wait till it hits Netflix, or Redbox, or until I can see it on one of the movie channels like HBO. If you must see a movie when it comes out, buy a damned ticket! There are enough crappy movies out there being made that you should pay for the GOOD ones. They might make better movies if more people pay to see what they like, instead of saying "I wasn't going to go see it anyways," then downloading it before it would have been available for free anyways.

Re:Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

They can, they just have to hope they don't get audited... and they pay to avoid that.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

It only deprives the copyright holder of potential income if you would have bought in the first place and you don't buy afterward. Take me, or example: I don't buy things I can't return unless I'm 100% certain I'll be satisfied with my purchase. I will 100% not pay for a movie I haven't already seen; if I can legally see it without paying for it, I'm not going to pay for it; if I can't, I'm going to pirate it and pay for it if I like it. I have a sizable movie collection to back this up.

So, you see, my piracy does not deprive copyright holders of a damn thing. Even if I could not pirate, I would not buy their wares anyway; and that piracy often leads to actual sales. Recently, it lead to me going to see Deadpool with a friend on opening night, then with my wife 2 days later, and with another friend a week after that, as well as the purchase of several pieces of Deadpool merchandise, and it will lead to my purchase of the Deadpool collectors edition or director's cut on Blu-Ray when that is released. None of that would have happened without piracy; I'd have waited until a friend bought the Blu-Ray or DVD and just watched theirs.

And therein lies the fault in the argument that piracy creates loss. In your crashed car analogy, you can prove loss; you weren't able to get to work because you lost use of the car. There is no way to prove that a downloader would (or even could) have purchased the content absent the download, nor can you prove they did not purchase it afterward (nor can I prove I actually went to see it 3 times, as I don't keep ticket stubs; I can show credit card statements listing purchases are 3 theaters on 3 different nights, but that does not prove what I saw on those nights).

You can prove damages, while the studios can't.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

I agree with this position, the question is, then, how long is fair? If we say movies make their money in 1 year, so we make it 1 year, will that still hold true? Or will people just wait a year for it to enter into the public domain, then see it for free? Even at 2 years, most people will likely wait, with only diehard fans of a series, author, director, or actor paying to see it. We might see significantly more sales at a 3 year copyright term, with more still at 4 years, but not as much as the jump from 2 to 3. I would go so far as to posit that a 3.5 year term, with one possible 3.5 year extension if it can be shown that the work is still profitable, would suffice today. Of course, I don't have data to back that up, but I don't believe anyone does, so the correct term would need to be derived experimentally, starting with cutting back to the original 14 year term, then reducing the term by 1 year each year until the studios can demonstrate a sizable decline in sales that cannot be caused by other factors. Once that point has been reached, increase the copyright term by 6 months and see if sales of new works pick back up; if the do not, increase by another 6 months (and you've now undone that previous 1 year reduction) and call it done. It's a process that may take anywhere from a few years to a little over a decade to complete, but it's the only way to honestly strike a fair balance between protecting the public domain and protecting content creators' ability to keep food on the table while creating content.

For an example of this sort of term adjustment working in the real world, look at how prices are set for pretty much any product or service.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

Ah, but then I could just copy it back. Sure, every copy devalues the currency, but when you can just copy yourself more, well... Sure, it would lead to the collapse of the monetary system and we all generally agree that would be a bad thing, but would it really? Playing devil's advocate here, would it really be bad to level the playing field between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich, making both participate equally in the barter system that would replace the collapsed monetary system? I guess it depends which side you're on; for the middle class, though, not much would change.

Re: Flawed logic

[BronsCon]

The music industry would have the courts believe so, but it is not. Nor is it stealing to download videos from Youtube, many of which are published directly by the artist or their label. In fact, that's the most popular way people "pirate" music today and it's not piracy at all, because it was the copyright holder who selected that distribution channel. Of course, there also exists a massive collection of illegitimate music videos on Youtube, but I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about what you can find on Youtube Music, which includes a massive catalog of popular music.

Re: Flawed logic

[sixsixtysix]

After that $20 movie is out for awhile, used copies can be had for $1, so the value of said content drops severely.

Re:Flawed logic

[sixsixtysix]

It's impossible to legally view a movie on an Android device if it comes in a DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes combo pack, and nobody wants to standardize..

Ultraviolet has been doing a decent job the past 5 or so years. Both Vudu and Flixster apps, which allow access to your Ultraviolert library, are available on Android.

Re:Flawed logic

[Voyager529]

Yes...but now you need multiple accounts, and it's wholly dependent on which studio releases the film, and if the studio only releases on iTunes then you'll never get an ultraviolet copy, and you have to stream the movies rather than keeping local copies.

These are all problem that self-ripping solves, and doesn't cost anyone anything, but is illegal because DMCA, yet we do the same thing with music because CDs are perfectly legal to do that with.

landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some possible theories to achieve such a goal would be based off making content more readily available to the consumer."

Great idea!

"Customers prepared to pay the required $50 to watch at home....."

uh oh, I see more black sails on the horizon...

Re: landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't download and spread movies because I like them. I do it because I want the movie industry to die.

Re: landlubbers abound

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

The industry would be more scared if people didn't bother downloading them even for free.

Re:landlubbers abound

[sims 2]

I can certainly see multi-millionaires paying $50 so they can watch a newly released film in their private 40 seat theater in their beach house in hawaii.

I on the other hand balk at the fact that a 10 year old tv show is still $25/season (for SD).

Re: landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you, the number of videos I've not downloaded is far in excess of the ones that I have downloaded. I'm not sure how that's helping, but alright.

Re:landlubbers abound

[pr0fessor]

I can see myself waiting a few months and paying $1.50 to rent the dvd from redbox. I still haven't seen the force awakens but it's at redbox so probably this weekend.
As for 10 year old tv shows netflix or hulu because $25/season is more than I'm willing to pay.

Re:landlubbers abound

[Archangel Michael]

There are very few movies I am willing to sit in a crowded theater for. My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.

I was watching a movie (at home) and said to my daughter "hey, I haven't seen the cat in a while", and the very next scene? The cat. We both laughed. However it emphasizes my point that the movie was so predictable that it was laughable.

Save your money, and watch Episode IV instead. Basically the same movie, with new players (and some old ones) and a few minor tweaks.

Re:landlubbers abound

[labnet]

*this*
The MPAA are business idiots.
If the MPAA ran a supermarket, they would say :
Hey, 2% of stuff is STOLEN.... let's put everything in locked glass shelves, then suddenly find out that the 50% reduction in sales (because it is now too inconvenient) dwarfs the now 1% that is being stolen.
Most people don't want to steal, but they do want convenience and a reasonable price.

Re:landlubbers abound

[serviscope_minor]

There are very few movies I am willing to sit in a crowded theater for.

If you went to the right crowded cinema, you'd get Finn (well Boyega) running up and down the aisle high fiving people at the right places. I think that would add something to it. I went to see it at that cinema (can't argue with tickets for a fiver), but not, sadly one of the screenings that he turned up for.

Being in a crowded cinema can add a lot of atmosphere to a film.

My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.

Films have ALWAYS been mostly formulaic. The only reason there are so many good old films is the vast, vast majority have sunken into the obscurity they deserve, leaving only the actually good ones.

Basically the same movie, with new players (and some old ones) and a few minor tweaks.

Yep, I'll agree with that. But I still really enjoyed it anyway. So go see the new one, it's fun!

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

I on the other hand balk at the fact that a 10 year old tv show is still $25/season (for SD).

Amazon is charging $63 for a season (or $2/episode) of "The Many Loves Of Dobie Gillis", released in 1960. $2/episode for a pretty crappy TV show that came out when my parents were little kids. Heads firmly in asses.

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

And most adults, you know ... the people with money (???).... don't want to go to crappy smelling cinemas with crappy people in the audience who can't get off their phones for 2 hours.

There is a reason that places like Alamo Draft House and others, exist, where adults can actually enjoy a movie without being hassled by teenage and juvenile adult behavior. If major box cinemas, looking at you CINEMARK, actually had a fucking backbone and blacklisted offenders, I might be sympathetic to the MPAA's concerns despite when I step into the theater to hand my money over to them. That the MPAA don't want to take a position beyond the 'on screen' lip service to put your phone away, or 'hey lady, don't bring your 2 year old to an R rated action movie with a bit of sex or gore' , my sympathy dries up even less.

With the above in account, and not even discussing the drive to the cinema.... t's far too easy to 'post the black sails' , when I can go make dinner, come back and a new movie is waiting to be watched. Now, tomorrow or whenver...

It still all goes back to experience. And until the excursion to the Cinema as a whole is improved, the 'black' area will always remain an option. Well, at least with todays ticket prices...

Re:landlubbers abound

[R3d M3rcury]

I on the other hand balk at the fact that a 10 year old tv show is still $25/season (for SD).

In their defense, 10 years ago many shows were shot on video tape in SD (or maybe a little better) because it was going to air in SD and people would be watching it in SD and why spend the extra money to do film?

As an old example, the original Star Trek was shot on film. They did this originally because there wasn't an easy way to do special effects with video tape. But everything was optimized for an SD screen. 50 years later, they still had the high resolution film, so they could start with that and redo the special effects, fix some of the background issues (e.g. walls painted with chalk that is blatantly obvious in HD), and come up with something pretty good.

But, at least as I understand it, Star Trek: The Next Generation was shot on video tape because, by 1987, they could do visual effects on a computer. So there is no "high resolution master" for TNG episodes. I believe that's also true with Deep Space 9 and Voyager. I think the second season of Enterprise was the first to actually film with High-Def cameras.

Personally, I agree with you. I balk at paying $25 for an old TV Show--even a favorite. But in regards to SD/HD, they may not really have a choice...

Re: landlubbers abound

[WarJolt]

Movie theater pros:
Big screen

Movie theater cons:
Poor contrast ratios.
Sub part seats
Fixed schedule.
No ability to pause for urination.
Terrible food
Expensive food.
Impolite movie patrons.
Sub part equipment or poorly trained operators ruining the experience.
Can't go to the movie theater in my underwear.

I stopped going when I got my first 50 inch tv.

Re: landlubbers abound

[serviscope_minor]

Any yet I and many others still like going to the cinema even though large screens and good sound systems are cheap now. I guess you must have missed a few things.

For example:
* Large audience annd atmosphere to the film
* You get to see the films sooner
* Draught ale on tap [depends on the cinema. My closest one has, the cheap one doesn't]
* No urination breaks + inability to go in your underwear + fixed schedule makes it much harder to drift off and start doing/thinking about other things in the film, so watching the film is a more immersive experience.
* For some cinemas, obscure/old films which aren't available anywhere else

If you don't like bad food, there are plenty of cinemas round here which will (literally) cater to your needs. Movie patron behaviour is not generally that bad round these parts. A notable exception is that if you go and see a kids film, the grown-ups are often very badly behaved and spend much of the film liiking at their phone. This depends on the cinema however.

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but you can also get Season 1 for $18.99 or the complete series for $80 (147 episodes, 4 seasons on 21 DVDs).

It still seems a bit pricey for a 50 year old TV show, but not as bad as you're suggesting.

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice example. I used to work at a company that did the exact opposite with great success.

In retail stores (at the time, anyway), phone accessories are locked away to prevent theft, and you need to find an employee to take a closer look. The company I worked at went to the retail stores and said "if you put our products on the shelf rather than behind the glass, we are going to cover the losses from theft.

The result was that we sold a lot more than our competitors behind the glass.

Re: landlubbers abound

[Talderas]

Movie theater cons:
Sub part seats
Impolite movie patrons.

The theater I use has powered recliners which also means fewer patrons per screening which reduces the probability of impolite patrons during the movie.

Re:landlubbers abound

[AmiMoJo]

Next Generation was shot on film, and has been re-mastered in HD from those sources. They shot on film and then transferred to video tape for compositing and editing, which allowed the people doing the re-master to follow the production notes and basically repeat the process, with a little CG thrown in to fix some issues with the set or enhance the model shots.

Even so, some shots are slightly out of focus. Back then they did manual focus and occasionally screwed up, but it wasn't visible in SD do didn't bother with another take.

I'm not sure about DS9 or Voyager... There was talk of DS9 getting the same treatment and it looks similar to TNG (that soft, washed out look you get from transferring to NTSC tape) but there are a lot of CG shots in it that would need recreating pretty much from scratch.

The first season of Enterprise was in 1080i.

Re:landlubbers abound

[AmiMoJo]

People like simple, predictable, reasonable pricing.

Mobile service contracts give the user an allowance of minutes, texts and data every month and most people get a plan that exceeds their needs so that they pay the same every month with no extra charges. The prices are fairly low so it's not a problem. The service providers (around here at least) have mostly done away with complexity like time of day pricing.

Netflix gives you as much as you can watch for a flat fee. Spotify gives you as much as you can listen to for a flat fee. Simple, predictable, cheap.

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, TNG was remastered for HD from the original film negatives.

http://www.ew.com/article/2012/01/05/star-trek-tng-hd-exclusive-video

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the part about "See?! We got 50% less sales because of shoplifters! WAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

Re:landlubbers abound

[tlhIngan]

My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.

Movies have always been formulaic. Just like why "old stuff lasted longer", the crap simply disappeared from memory. We threw out old appliances that broke, cars that broke down in favor of newer models, etc. And we forgot about the crap load of books, movies, tv and music that we deemed crap back then as well. I mean, B movies were a thing in the past.

The other thing is, well, social media. A crap movie will be known about pretty quickly, whereas in the past it would take a bit for word of mouth to kill it. So stuff like B movies won't be made today because they'd be dead after the first showing, while in the past, they'd be killed after a few weeks

Re:landlubbers abound

[Anonymous Coward]

The prices you mention are for physical DVDs, while the prices I mentioned were for streaming access. The fact that a physical copy that you own is significantly cheaper than renting it is pretty bad.

Re: landlubbers abound

[fbobraga]

watching movies on theaters and home are two complete different things: IMHO, one experience don't excludes the other :-)

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh again!

Huh

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I don't illegally download movies.

I have a gigantic DVD collection. I found out the pawn shop near me sells used dvds for a buck each. and BluRay are 3 for ten.

Don't care what model they go for. Somebody already paid for my movie. :)

Deadpool

[MightyMartian]

Considering Deadpool has alone has made over $750 million dollars globally, on a budget of less than $60 million, and that's not counting big blockbusters of late like Star Wars VII and even Batman vs Superman, I think claims of the movie industry's demise are heavily overstated. Hell, Deadpool and Star Wars are still playing on screens near where I live.

Yes, there have been flops, but I doubt anyone can link those flops to pirating.

Re:Deadpool

[NormalVisual]

Considering Deadpool has alone has made over $750 million dollars globally, on a budget of less than $60 million

Not when you factor "Hollywood accounting" into it. This is an industry that goes to great, creative lengths to screw people out of money they're contractually entitled to, and they want us to feel sorry for them. When the MPAA execs start being honest with the people that actually make the movies that line their pockets, I'll start taking them a little more seriously. Until then, I have the world's smallest violin playing just for them.

Re:Deadpool

[AthanasiusKircher]

Considering Deadpool has alone has made over $750 million dollars globally, on a budget of less than $60 million, and that's not counting big blockbusters of late like Star Wars VII and even Batman vs Superman, I think claims of the movie industry's demise are heavily overstated.

While I agree that the industry claims are overstated, it's important to note that the movies that make many times their budget are rather rare. The cost of making -- and often more importantly, marketing -- a movie these days are often quite significant. They don't have to be, and many "independent" films manage to be made on a shoestring budget with rather high quality nowadays.

But lots of mainstream Hollywood films have budgets in excess of $100 million, and they might spend that much or more on marketing. That's a lot of ticket sales to make up if the movie bombs... and many do.

Personally, I blame most of this on ridiculous salaries or profit deals paid to certain very elite groups -- the main producers, directors, high-profile writers, well-known actors, etc. Often the assistant deputy key grip isn't making huge amounts of money, and extras are often lucky to scrape together a part-time living.

If the industry were run more rationally, we'd probably have a lot more films made for a few million dollars, with the occasion mega hit that makes hundreds of millions. Instead, all these studio executives like to gamble big-time... thinking that hundreds of millions in investment will turn into billions in return. Sometimes they win, but often they lose. And with such a volatile market that's often completely unpredictable, they often struggle to maintain profits, despite a few blockbusters every year.

As the old saying goes, "Ya pays yer money; ya takes yer chances." Studio execs just seem to like gambling with huge amounts of money.

Re:Deadpool

[rtb61]

So how about another question, is it a waste of planetary resources in it's current format and should be eliminated. Perhaps to much of the planets resources are being consumed by it and it produces nothing but empty entertainment. Should it be limited, should copyright be cut back or even eliminated where the content produced does not further the sciences or human society, should it be purposefully reduced and minimised because it quite simply wastes to much of our shared resources. Perhaps the content to achieve copyright should be tested by a public body and the value of that work with regards to the furtherance of human society should define it's worth. Do we want to waste legal and political assets and resources and tax payer dollars on protecting poor human social value content, if it is not considered social fit should it be declared unfit for the completely artificial protection of copyright.

Re:Deadpool

[AthanasiusKircher]

By the way, before anyone calls me out on this, I was somewhat joking about the title "assistant deputy key grip," making fun of the hierarchical set of titles often running within closing credits. Obviously anyone who knows much about film crews will know such a title is a bit nonsensical, though I wouldn't put it past someone in Hollywood to create such a position.

Re:Deadpool

[Anonymous Coward]

Films cost so much to make because they make so much money. Films don't make a profit because the money is siphoned off in ridiculous costs during production and marketing - before it ever hits a cinema.

If a film makes a profit, the money gets taxed more. This is why a movie star's ultimate aim is to have a production company.

Hollywood is a giant fraud. Always has been. Always will be.

Even Deadpool - which "only" cost $60 million.

It raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

"To beg the question" does not mean what you think it means.

Re:It raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Begging the question is making an assumption that ought be questioned. The assumption here is that piracy is hurting sales, but what we see is increased piracy and more sales. So, the statements do "beg the question".

To "Raise the question" one actually proposes a fucking question you idiot.

Re:It raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. "Begging the question" is a legal term referring to a statement that implies fact not in evidence. The article uses it wrongly (like most people to) to assert that a given statement leads to or implies a question, which is wrong. "Raises a question" means exactly what he says it does. A question can be raised by a statement or another question. So, it is YOU that is the idiot.

Re:It raises the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both fucking morons. I win the argument and half the Internets.

begs? no! raises!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://begthequestion.info/

Sean Parker had a very small role in Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase a famous film quote, I guess people have decided to post the legend.

Actually it doesn't "beg the question" . . .

[Bootsy Collins]

. . .since that's not what "begs the question" means.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the meaning of words and phrases change over time, grammar nazi, blah blah blah. But the simple fact is that there are LOTS of other phrases that mean what you're trying to say when you misuse "begs the question" and that are thus available to you; but there's no other succinct phrase in English that means what "begs the question" actually means. Re-purposing that phrase weakens the language: it takes away the only useful expression for one concept, and allocates it to something that already has a number of different simple ways to be expressed.

Re:Actually it doesn't "beg the question" . . .

[NormalVisual]

Not to mention the correct phrase "raises the question" isn't that much more of an effort to type/write.

Re:Actually it doesn't "beg the question" . . .

[Wraithlyn]

there's no other succinct phrase in English that means what "begs the question" actually means

Says you. How about "presuming the conclusion". Which is actually a wording that is self-explanatory and makes sense.

As opposed to "begs the question", which intuitively means exactly what people use it for, "demands the question". What a crazy interpretation, right? It's almost like "beg" and "demand" are similar in meaning or something.

The original meaning of "begs the question" is de facto useless, because nobody understands it, in no small part because the words themselves naturally convey a different meaning.

Just let it die. Seriously.

Re:Actually it doesn't "beg the question" . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A mistake is still a mistake, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it may be. Yes, English is full of such mistakes that became accepted usage because they achieved some critical mass. In common usage, the phrase is usually taken to mean the same thing as "raises the question."

However, we're not talking about common usage here. We're talking about professional writers who are supposed to be educated in standards for written English in publication, and they should know that this phrase is a philosophical term, and what it means. Standards evolve too, but we have them for a good reason, and professional writers don't get a free pass on errors just because they've become common.

Re:Actually it doesn't "beg the question" . . .

[stealth_finger]

there's no other succinct phrase in English that means what "begs the question" actually means

Says you. How about "presuming the conclusion". Which is actually a wording that is self-explanatory and makes sense.

Plus it kinda rhymes. I'd vote for this.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

The records would have been even LARGER without piracy! Every single block of a torrent transfer should be counted as an individual lost purchase to the movie, since it should be impossible to see that fraction of a second of the movie without buying a ticket. The market has lost TRILLIONS to piracy for its latest release!

1.5 / 27

[JoeMerchant]

If they are only claiming a little over 5% loss to piracy, they likely aren't accounting for the greater than 5% increase from the engagement that piracy creates.

People who "never watch movies" are simply out of the picture, but when these same people watch 20 movies through piracy and then pay to watch 2 or 3 through legitimate channels, that's a net win for the industry.

Re:1.5 / 27

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that never happens
Stop defending piracy

Re:1.5 / 27

[Anonymous Coward]

I have proven you wrong. I almost never go to the movies. I hate it for the most part but sometimes (Deadpool) I DL'd something and find it really good, so I went to see it, and I was glad I did. Net Win for all sides.

Re:1.5 / 27

[BronsCon]

"Never" is an absolute term. It takes only one example to disprove an absolute. Allow me to stand up: In the past 15 years I have not bought a single movie I have not first pirated. I've bought a number of movies, but, again, it only takes one.

Why? Because I can't return a crapfest I'm not satisfied with, like I can return just about any other product, and I work hard for my money, just like the studios. And just like all the people making the other products I can return if not satisfied. When I can return a DVD or Blu-Ray just like any other product, I'll stop pre-purchase pirating. If they find a way to effectively stop piracy without allowing returns for a full refund, I'll quit buying altogether.

And I know I'm not the only one who does it, because I have friends who do the same. But, again, it only takes one example to disprove an absolute.

Ticket price going up....

[hawky]

Looking at http://www.natoonline.org/data... ticket price increases don't seem to be that much.
But I don't think that is including all the extras... 3D, IMAX, etc.. Looking to by 3D/IMAX Batman Vs Superman tickets are over $17 for an adult ticket which is a little bit more than $8.43 national average for last year....

I think this does help them get the record breaking numbers even with though viewer turnout increasing as much.

Shitty movies that bend me over

[Anonymous Coward]

At shitty theaters is theft.
I have been waiting a long time for a better movie than the first one I ever seen and the drive in I seen it at was better than theater in America today.
Good Bad and Ugly.

Old excuses are lame excuse

[mark-t]

Almost every single rationalization or justification that I've ever heard for why a person might pirate, other than supporting the abolition of copyright entirely, can be found on the list of ethical fallacies, and it gives a person some measure of pause to at least carefully consider the premise that just because one *can* do something, does not necessarily mean that they *should*.

I'm probably going to modded into slashdot hell for saying this, but that these alleged studies that somehow show that piracy doesn't harm the sales of works are entirely irrelevant.... if one believes that copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it, even if they do not agree with the means by which it is being implemented. If you pirate, you either advocate the complete abolition of copyright or are a hypocrite. Period.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Copyright should be a good thing. It's called copy right, as in "the right to make a copy". But in a few decades, Hollywood, the MPPA, the RIAA and Disney butchered copyright laws to a point where the spirit of it isn't even there anymore. They've twisted it into "it's only to protect us, screw everyone else and screw the public domain".

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Dutch Gun]

I don't believe that terrorism is such a threat to US citizens that it's worth the cost of our government spying on us or eroding our personal liberties. I'm also highly skeptical of those in government who keep beating the drumbeat of the terrorism threat in an effort to acquire more power for unilateral action. Such a position doesn't mean that I'm endorsing terrorism.

Likewise, do you understand that one might not hold a great deal of sympathy for the MPAA or their claims of how much piracy is hurting them while still being opposed to copyright infringement in general?

I'm a content producer myself, so copyright infringement theoretically hurts my bottom line as well, but my position is a bit more pragmatic. I believe that given proper incentives, many people will choose to purchase your product even if pirating it for free is an option. People generally want to do the right thing, and many people understand that if a project isn't supported financially, development for that product will likely cease.

The trick is to make the legitimate version of the product better, and more convenient than the pirated version while still keeping the price reasonable, and the traditional media has thus far done an absolutely horrid job of this. For those who choose to "pirate" my goods anyhow... well, they're not my customers then, and so as long as they don't actively impede my work, we'll agree to live and let live. Maybe one day they'll change their ways and become paying customers if they enjoyed my product.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't agree with the means by which it is being implemented, then you agree with the complete abolition of the current copyright laws. By definition.

You are bad at logic.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Gr8Apes]

I believe copyright, as it was originally defined, to be a good thing. I am probably a "pirate" to the various *AAs because, by some unholy means, I make personal copies of works and transfer them to other mediums to increase my enjoyment of my collection. If you read the copyright notice you can't get around on any disk, unless, of course, you flaunt the DMCA via some other nefarious means, such as recording the portion you want to see or merely walking to the kitchen for a refreshing beverage or the toilet to emphasize how you feel about the *AAs, you'll see that the implication is that all copying is unauthorized, because, of course, they didn't authorize it. In truth, only copies made and DISTRIBUTED without authorization fall afoul of *copyright* laws. The *AAs have managed to squeeze in some additional laws to make other activities illegal based on false innuendos which hopefully will soon be corrected.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[GrumpySteen]

if one believes that copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it, even if they do not agree with the means by which it is being implemented

Absolutely not.

Nobody has an ethical obligation to support every aspect of a law just because they support one part of it. The fact that the constitution included a process for adding amendments should make it clear that unquestioning obedience to the law was never the intent of our legal system.

We're quite capable of acknowledging that copyright has benefited society while still recognizing that parts of copyright law have been expanded far beyond the original intent in ways that now cause harm.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[ewhac]

...can be found on the list of ethical fallacies, [ ... ]

If you pirate, you either advocate the complete abolition of copyright or are a hypocrite. Period.

False dilemma.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[dissy]

if one believes that copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it, even if they do not agree with the means by which it is being implemented. If you pirate, you either advocate the complete abolition of copyright or are a hypocrite. Period.

That's a false statement.

I can have exactly zero respect for our current implementation of copyright law, while believing copyright as originally intended is indeed a good thing, while also at the same time not pirating anything.

Because that is exactly what I do.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[BronsCon]

What content? Yours is an attitude I would like to support.

Re: Old excuses are lame excuse

[ljw1004]

What if you only copy things after the 14 + 14 year duration that US copyright law originally had?

If you support copyright as originally laid down, and obey it, but think that the copyright contract between public and producers has been unilaterally and unfairly altered to the detriment of the public?

Are you still a hypocrite then?

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[UnknownSoldier]

Oh please. False Dichotomy much?

. /Oblg. DVD vs Piracy

People pirate for a variety of reasons. Such as:

1. One can't legally buy a copy. Piracy is the *only* option to watch it.
2. Artificial Scarcity. If a DVD/BluRay is not available in my region, piracy is simply more convenient
3. They can't afford it.
4. If a borrow a movie from a library, watch it, and then return it this has the exact same effect as if I had borrowed a movie from the library, made a copy, returned the original, and watch my copy later, except the former is legal, yet the latter is "magically" illegal
5. Piracy is the delusion that "copying numbers is illegal". How stupid is Civilization when it has declared Illegal Numbers !?!? /sarcasm Those pesky Mathematicians! They are the cause of the downfall of society!

To everyone who plays the bullshit piracy-is-illegal card here are some questions for you:

Q. If your friend buys a DVD and loans it to you, is it piracy if you watch it? You never paid for the content.
Q. How many friends can I loan my DVD / BluRay to before it becomes piracy?
Q. Why is it OK if I personally loan it to friends, but I can't share my copy with strangers?
Q. How "long" do I have to know a person before I can legally share my copy?
Q. Are libraries engaging in piracy?

Do I personally pirate? No, as I like having my own personal library so I don't mind buying BluRays / DVDs. If I can't buy it, I'll just wait until it is available. But my reasons for why I _don't_ pirate may not work for someone who _does_.

> copyright is a good thing at all, then one has a ethical obligation to respect it,

1. When Copyright was only ~20 years, sure, I have no problem following that but when the law has become corrupt that something that _would_ become "public domain" will NEVER reach that status, then there is higher obligation:

Civil Disobedience is the only way to change to corrupt laws.

2. Rosa Parks would like to have some of what you are smoking. Laws are NOT absolutes. That is why they _change over time_.

Personally, abolish copyright, because it is no longer server its original purpose:

One major purpose of Copyright Law is to "promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts", in other words knowledge.

So no, we're not ethically bound to follow bullshit artificial laws.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[mark-t]

I'll reference fallacies by the name given in the ethicscoreboard.

1. One can't legally buy a copy. Piracy is the *only* option to watch it.

Woody's Excuse.

2. Artificial Scarcity. If a DVD/BluRay is not available in my region, piracy is simply more convenient

Tit for Tat.

3. They can't afford it.

And that somehow makes it right? Variation of the Saint's License.

4. If a borrow a movie from a library, watch it, and then return it this has the exact same effect as if I had borrowed a movie from the library, made a copy, returned the original, and watch my copy later, except the former is legal, yet the latter is "magically" illegal

Wrong.. the former did not infringe on the copyright holder's rights. The library did not make an unauthorized copy of the work for you to borrow.

5. Piracy is the delusion that "copying numbers is illegal". How stupid is Civilization when it has declared Illegal Numbers !?!? /sarcasm Those pesky Mathematicians! They are the cause of the downfall of society!

Copying something without permission that a rights holder was supposed to have exclusive rights to control copies is what is illegal. Exclusive means that nobody else is doing it, after all. If you disagree with this premise, then you advocate abolition of copyright.

Civil Disobedience is the only way to change to corrupt laws.And we're back to tit-for-tat. Also, wrong.... you can vote for representatives that will promote the kinds of laws that you want. Being too lazy or impatient to go that route does not mean that the route does not exist.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Tweets.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

You did a good job of committing the consistency obsession there, buddy.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[delt0r]

Fuck ethics. I want to watch a move. Hmm not on Netflix in my area? Oh look bittorrent is, thanks for playing.

If Hollywood ran out of money and shut down tomorrow. The world would probably be a better place anyway. After all there are always lol cats on youtube :P.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Dutch Gun]

I'm an independent videogame developer. Unfortunately, I'm still at least a year from finishing up my title, but thanks for the sentiment. To be honest, I was inspired by Brad Wardell, president and CEO of StarDock, who espoused a similar view years ago:

http://www.ign.com/articles/20...

I'm hoping someday I can also prove the naysayers wrong by offering fun, affordable, DRM-free titles and making a good living doing it. The way I figure it, the industry isn't going to change itself.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[mark-t]

Actually, more specifically the copyright is the right to *control* who else may make copies. If it were simply the right to make a copy, then a portion of that right would be implicitly surrendered whenever a copyright holder granted permission to anyone else to make even an entirely authorized copy, but that is not the case.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

But that right to control who makes the copies was only granted with the condition that your work would only be protected for a limited time and would then enter the public domain and give everyone else the right to copy without any remuneration to the creators.

But the law has been twisted for so long that even lawyers seem to conveniently forget that "limited time" and "public domain" clause.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

People pirate for a variety of reasons. Such as:

1. One can't legally buy a copy. Piracy is the *only* option to watch it.
2. Artificial Scarcity. If a DVD/BluRay is not available in my region, piracy is simply more convenient
3. They can't afford it.
4. If a borrow a movie from a library, watch it, and then return it this has the exact same effect as if I had borrowed a movie from the library, made a copy, returned the original, and watch my copy later, except the former is legal, yet the latter is "magically" illegal
5. Piracy is the delusion that "copying numbers is illegal". How stupid is Civilization when it has declared Illegal Numbers [wikipedia.org] !?!? /sarcasm Those pesky Mathematicians! They are the cause of the downfall of society!

Wow!! Just fucking wow!! You mean to tell me that "They're cheap and don't want to pay for something when they're pretty damn sure they can get away with stealing* it" didn't even make your list? Please tell me you're not that ignorant.

That should be item number one on the list. All other reasons pale in comparison to such an extent that they should be combined into item number two - "other"

Q. If your friend buys a DVD and loans it to you, is it piracy if you watch it? You never paid for the content.

Not unless you make a copy of it

Q. How many friends can I loan my DVD / BluRay to before it becomes piracy?

All of them. It only becomes piracy if they make a copy of it.

Q. Why is it OK if I personally loan it to friends, but I can't share my copy with strangers?

You can share your copy with anyone you want. It only becomes illegal if they make a copy of it.

Q. How "long" do I have to know a person before I can legally share my copy?

See answer to previous question

Q. Are libraries engaging in piracy?

No, providing they aren't making copies of them.

It ain't fucking rocket science, dude.

*I don't play with semantics.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[UnknownSoldier]

> Copying something without permission that a rights holder was supposed to have exclusive rights for a limited time to control copies is what is illegal. Exclusive means that nobody else is doing it, after all. If you disagree with this premise, then you advocate abolition of copyright.

FTFY

Again you keep parroting the Fallacy of Duality.

I'm OK with reasonable copyright when it is for a limited time, like ~10 ..- ~15 years.
I'm NOT ok with retarded copyright of an author's lifetime + 75 years.

You are completely ignorant about the history of copyright. Copyright was initiated by printers/publishers to prevent other publishers from profiting off their work but you can see still the _spirit_ of the law was for sharing of knowledge. What was that Law called again? Oh gee, look, a law for the Encouragement of Learning.

In England the printers, known as stationers, formed a collective organisation, known as the Stationers' Company. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register. Only members of the Stationers' Company could enter books into the register. This meant that the Stationers' Company achieved a dominant position over publishing in 17th century England (no equivalent arrangement formed in Scotland and Ireland). The monopoly came to an end in 1694, when the English Parliament did not renew the Stationers Company's power.[6]

In 1707 the parliaments of England and Scotland were united as a result of the Anglo-Scottish Union. The new parliament was able to change the laws in both countries and an important early piece of legislation was the Copyright Act of 1709, also known as the Statute of Anne, after Queen Anne. The act came into force in 1710 and was the first copyright statute. Its full title was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned"

The enforcement of the Statute of Anne in April of 1710 marked a historic moment in the development of copyright law. As the world's first copyright statute it granted publishers of a book legal protection of 14 years with the commencement of the statute.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[BronsCon]

Well, you've got my email address; let me know when it launches. :)

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[UnknownSoldier]

Your fallacy is you keep forgetting that copyright is for a LIMITED time.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Originally it was 17 years. Now the duration is a retarded author's lifetime + 70 years.

Holding popular culture "hostage" for the sake of greed is immature.

The fundamental problem is copyright kills creativity, yet copyright is ignored in the fashion industry.

>> Q. How many friends can I loan my DVD / BluRay to before it becomes piracy?
> All of them. It only becomes piracy if they make a copy of it.

False.

1. If copyright is still ACTIVE then the answer is: All.
2. If copyright has EXPIRED then the answer is: None.
3. You're forgetting that in some places in the world, such as Canada, Germany, etc. you can loan your _original_ to a friend, and they CAN _legally_ make a copy, and return the original partially due to a) a levy tax on blank media, and b) due to a legal loophole:

With physical media like tapes or CDs the "owner" is the person in possession of the original copy. This definition made it legit, at least in Canada, to borrow original materiel, copy it, and then return.

Thankfully coercion for the criminal tax is ignored sometimes.

> It ain't fucking rocket science, dude.

No, shit Sherlock. However, Copyright Law is NOT black and white, when the law keeps changing:

* MPAA says making a backup copy is illegal. That is, you can NO longer legally archive your original DVD's which is retarded.

* When even lending your CD to a friend is illegal (WTF!?), the whole system has become corrupt.

You are under no obligation to follow bad laws.

Re:Old excuses are lame excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I am concerned they screwed themselves. The last movie I saw was Dark Night in Imax. Since then I watched a pirate copy of Avatar. Liked it so much I bought a Blu-ray copy of it. Since that one it has been Mehh, so what, not worth price of admission.

Alternate Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA's Aggressive Anti-Piracy Enforcement Helps Produce Box Office Record

In an alternative universe, maybe. Not on this site, for sure!

copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

If copyright infringement of movies is no big deal, as this article tries to infer, why should I respect any copyrights on digital goods? By that same justification, I'm doing nothing wrong if I take GPL software, use the source in a closed source product, and then distribute that product. GPL relies on copyrights to be enforcable. If it's okay to infringe upon copyrights of one digital product (movies), why shouldn't it be okay to commit copyright infringement of another digital product (GPL software)?

Re: copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference is unjust profit

Actually it DOES "beg the question", IDIOTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron. Go read that fucking link, and you'll soon realize that you and all the other nitwits chiming in about the "incorrect usage" in TFS are wrong.

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

In TFA the logical fallacy is that piracy is assumed to be hurting the movie industry, this claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. Indeed, we have contrary evidence of more profits. This begs the question: Couldn't the initial assumption that piracy is harming the movie industry be wrong? That piracy hurts sales is assumed as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

GOTCHA! Fucking pedantic fools! Just look at all the parrots who got triggered by the correct usage of the term into spouting nonsense like preprogrammed automatons. You fail at Grammar Nazism. You are not clever. You do not have a superior understanding. You're out of your depth and should reevaluate your life and stop wasting our time.

$50 to watch ONE movie?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Is this guy insane? I only pay $9 for Netflix and I can watch a lot of movies for that low price. Sure, I have to wait months or even years, but in the end I've watched the same movies as everybody else. My money is better spent elsewhere, like rent and food.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Type44Q]

Is this guy insane?

Completely... unless he's targeting a different demographic than you're assuming. How many people have dumped thousands into relatively-decent* home theater setups and would love to watch first-run movies in the comfort of their own homes, and we're not even talking about much of a premium, cost-wise; think about how much tickets, popcorn and flavored-corn-syrup-diluted-with-carbonated-pool-water for four people typically costs.

*It doesn't take much to assemble a system that'll put the typical "nice" theater to shame, at least for small groups of people (it's obviously not going to compare in screen size or total watts...)

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Still, at $50 it's a lot more than even double what you'd pay at the theater.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you are poor. Now think of those with plenty of disposable income, where $50 is just a basic eating out experience. Watching a new movie at home on your own decent gear away from the cattle, slobs, gangs, screaming kids and stench from those unable to not stuff their faces for a couple of hours, $50 for a family of 4 watching a day 1 releases blockbuster is hardly expensive. It's clearly the superior experience, and likely to be cheaper.

The world is a lot vaster that you, your limited income, and your negligible life experience. Try to think behind your little sphere for once.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's roughly 18 times what I'd pay at the theatre. That is: what I would pay at the theatre if the theatre wasn't so expensive. $50 is not worth considering.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

The one thing I forgot to calculate is the price per person. If you have a family of four, then $50 suddenly isn't that expensive compared to going out to the theater. Once you factor in the price of popcorn and drinks, it's actually cheaper.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how many people are watching.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is per ticket. For a family of 4, or perhaps after inviting a few friends over, the cost per viewer goes down significantly. Then factoring the cost of snacks, time saved, etc. and the cost for this service would come out much cheaper. It certainly won't appeal to everyone, but to some it definitely will.

Re:$50 to watch ONE movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you have a group of 4.

you underwear perverts GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

[Thud457]

"To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the movies has been greatly exaggerated," Dodd said.

Truly. Our local multiplex has switched over to a "All super heroes, all the time" format. And the local 13-year-olds couldn't be happier.

And the roster of 13 superhero TV shows are making this "The Golden Age of Television".

So Piracy is Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do We need more?
Will the Movie Industry Explode if Piracy was not there?
Does this have a point?

WOW. My question to the masses in response to this

[Anonymous Coward]

1.5 billion extra..

Hmm now, whom actually needs all that cash??

Where would it go? how would it be used??
How would that xtra cash benefit the communities that pitched in on it??

Would it put a dent in poverty?
Would it would it help with disease control?
would it help to develop 3rd world countries?

If they are making so much now (more than most countries), then why do they block piracy in the first place?? A tax right-off?

Wait, Wholly crap, I got it..
ya, a business loss could be a tax write-off, the war on piracy, where only the humans actually loose..
I mean, when I go to grab a lawyer for defence, I pay for my own. With NO return..
These guys, win or loose, they get something out of it. Either damages in legal penalties, or Stipens from the Govt as tax write-off's for loosing their poor battles..

Why cant I have such a privilege??

Flops are flops because they do not appeal to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that simple. Just because "critics" like something, it doesn't mean that it will appeal to the general public. Critics are essentially hipsters, they like stuff that nobody really like and hate whatever is popular.

Box office sales versus home movie sales

[Wycliffe]

People like to watch new movies in the theatre. Piracy doesn't affect that. It might affect home video sales but if they've already made a profit, home video sales are just gravy. Kindof like musicians make a majority of their money from live shows. The movie industry already knows this. That's why they give out free copies of previous movies on various streaming sites right before the sequel comes out. Let's just make home videos free and be done with it.

Re:Box office sales versus home movie sales

[MightyMartian]

How long has being able to own a personal copy of a movie been around. I know home VCRs have been around since the 1970s, but the cost of buying a videotape even in the 1980s was pretty darned high. I don't think it became common to have large personal movie libraries until the 1990s. So really, the whole personal copy angle has been around maybe 20 or 25 years, a small portion of the amount of time the film industry has been around. I get that DVD sales may be dropping, and you're right, it has been just gravy, for the most part. I imagine there are some marginal losers out there that may have squeaked through a net profit due to video sales, and I know there's money to be made off of releasing TV series, though I'd wager streaming has taken a cut out of that as well.

The real problem here is that the TV and film industry long ago plateaued on how much money they could make. Now it's about how the pie gets distributed, with streaming taking a large piece by cannibalizing sales in other distribution streams.

Re:Box office sales versus home movie sales

[Wycliffe]

Now it's about how the pie gets distributed, with streaming taking a large piece by cannibalizing sales in other distribution streams.

Yeah, i didn't even mention streaming sites like netflix. How many people now go watch the movie in the theatre and then wait until it comes to netflix/redbox and never buy it at all. Sure, netflix doesn't have all the movies but it has more than enough to fill every waking moment of a person's life. They like to blame piracy but at least among my friends, very few pirate anything now days. Most of them just fill their entertainment time with B grade movies/videos from netflix, youtube and cable tv. The movie industry would probably make more money if they ditched the whole dvd sale thing and instead had a slightly more expensive netflix (say $20/month) that including the A movies too.

Re:Box office sales versus home movie sales

[fbobraga]

People like to watch new movies in the theatre.

not all of them

Get lost.

[ledow]

And householders would be 1.5bn better off if they didn't have to fit locks, and alarms, and other security.

And airports would be 1.5bn better off if there wasn't terrorism.

And countries would be BILLIONS better off if people just got off their arses and got a job, and paid taxes honestly.

But none of that is going to happen. You have legislation in place to combat all those. For copyright, It's already disproportionally harsh, and enforced where necessary (i.e. mass duplicators, and those people who are brought to court reasonably for deliberately downloading movies they haven't paid for).

Stop whining, get off your arses and focus on making movies.

Hint: Not been to a cinema in years. Don't buy DVD's any more, unless it's second-hand and thereby not profitable for you at all. Will pay a reasonable price for legal download rights for stuff I consider worthwhile in a half-playable format.

The reason you're not making all that you could? That shit you put into the cinema and flood everything else out with. That crap you enforce on your media and streams. The bollocks that you make me sit through on legally owned media.

I do not pirate. I pay for things. I paid for my shareware in the 90's (yes, I own mIRC, WinZIP, Doom and lots of other things that nobody ever paid for). I paid for proper licensing for commercial software of those things I used "for personal use" that were more than worth the money (VMWare was worth its hefty price and that's the MOST I've ever paid for software). I donate to software projects that I have no need to. I buy copies of good games for friends and give them out at Christmas, birthdays, special occasions and even run competitions on my game servers that I run FOR FREE for various communities. I have no qualms about handing over money for the legal right to play content that I *could* acquire elsewhere and supporting things I enjoyed myself.

But all that shit you do? It makes me choose between supporting that side of the shit, or pirating, if I want to watch it. So I choose not to watch it instead.

Honestly, best thing of buying a handful of movies with "free" credit from Amazon / Google Play? No unskippable trailers. Play from a multitude of devices, when I want, where I want, how I want. I don't even care that the downloads are DRM'd, to be honest, I have 1000 Steam games and that doesn't bother me either.

But it's the shit that GETS IN THE WAY that really bugs me. Software updates to BluRay players in order to watch a movie? Fuck that. I press play, I want to watch it. Wait MONTHS for a movie I do want to see to come out somewhere other than the cinema? I'd rather just forget about it and pick it up when it comes out as a "freebie" movie on some download service if you're going to deliberately stymie my initial enthusiasm for it. DVD's that don't play in laptops? Fuck off. And TEN MINUTES of fucking trailers that I can't skip when I just want to put on a Disney movie to occupy a child? That's just fucking evil. So I stopped buying them.

Stop whining about how unfair the world is, because copyright infringement is part-and-parcel of your industry the same way that "No the parcel never arrived" is part-and-parcel of running a mail order business. Sometimes it could be honest, sometimes it could be fraudulent. But you can't piss away your profits chasing it except in obvious - or large - cases and most people just can't be bothered to go to the effort of pirating things anyway. That's why Netflix et al are so popular. And why iTunes makes a killing even though ANY song you want is available on the first page of Google if you put in "mp3" into it. But navigating the mire of illegal downloads is beyond most people. They'd rather just have one place to go, pay, and download their content in a format they'd like.

iTunes lost the MP3 battle. How long until you lose the "H264" battle where you just end up providing DRM-free copies of anything people have bought a license to?

Honestly,

I'll tell you where the theft is

[fyngyrz]

You do understand that when they make a movie, it takes a lot of effort and money, right? And, if everyone goes "hey, it's not theft", then they won't get that money, right? And then they won't have either the money or inclination to make you the next movie. Got that? No more great movies for you to copy without paying.

Luckily, most people understand this. The number of "if I copy an expensively produced product it's not theft" ideologues is far smaller than the number of "hey thanks for making this awesome thing, here's the x$ you asked for it" supporters of the arts.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with work product that someone INTENDED to give you. I write free software; it is my intent that you get it for free, and all I'm really looking for in return is that you enjoy it if it suits you to do so, and hopefully give me feedback so I can improve it, as I use it as well. But, as any reasoning person might work out without trouble, I am able to do this because doing so does not cost me much money. If it cost me 100 million dollars, as do many movies, you can bet that I would be expecting recompense for its use.

Books take a long time to write. Software too, if it's more than trivial. I've spent years on mine. Movies. Music can be very difficult to get right (I'm not talking about desktop-DJ music, I'm talking about the work product of musicians) and it can take quite some time to put together an album, for instance. You want these people to keep making cool stuff, do you not? Or would you prefer that everyone copy everything that currently exists without paying and all the artists go get jobs at McDonalds, nevermore to create for us?

I know I enjoy the new stuff. So I don't steal or copy. If payment is specified, and I think the entertainment is worth the money, I buy it. If not, I don't. In that way I encourage the stuff I like, and ignore the stuff I don't.

It seems so obvious to me that this is the reasonable and correct way to behave. I just can't wrap my head around the "copying is ok because it's not a material exchange" idea as either reasonable or prudent. To me, all I see is the content producer spent money, and the copier didn't. That's a one-way money pipe. Eventually, all one way pipes run out of content. Because duh.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[Anonymous Coward]

The law says piracy is not theft. All logic and semantics be damned; the law is clear.

Copyright Infringement is illegal, but it is not theft. They are covered under different sections of law, have different enforcement regulations and different penalties.

Discussion over.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[fyngyrz]

All logic and semantics be damned; the law is clear.

The law said slavery was right and good. The law said that women being forbidden to vote was right and good. The law said that dark skinned people were to ride on the back of the bus, and use separate bathrooms, and drink from separate fountains. The law says that "interstate commerce" means "intrastate commerce." The law was, and remains, completely clear on these and similarly wrongheaded matters. And in so doing, it is completely, utterly, wrong. As is precisely the case here.

The law is the world's least worthy foundation to base an argument upon as it is commonly formulated by incompetents, sycophants, and the morally and ethically bereft, not in any particular order and in various combinations. So based, unsurprisingly, your argument fails utterly. My position is based upon facts and reason and recognition of the worth of production. Unless you strive for the same, your arguments will remain at the playground level. Selfish, baseless, failures.

Damning logic and semantics, as you say, puts you in precisely the same place as the people who made those laws. Clear, yes; clearly wrong. Wielding a power you have no ethical foundation for, while intentionally blinding yourself to obvious human truths, in most unworthy self-service.

NOW the discussion is over. Cheers. :)

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[Anonymous Coward]

Spending a shit-ton of money to make a movie without guaranteed income from said movie is a flaw in business practices. It's all a gamble. Lobbying the U.S. government to enact more and more laws to protect a revenue stream based on a gamble is ... pathetic and corrupt.

I don't care how much money you spend making a movie - if it's shit, i'm not going to watch it, or pay you a dime for it. There is no "guaranteed income" from copyright, none, nada. There is absolutely no guarantee that a work of art will yield any reward. I pay money for things that I think are worth paying money for.

This concept of guaranteed income for work put into art doesn't exist in the U.S. any longer, and it's ridiculous that copyright industry lobbyists continue to insist that it should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[ewibble]

I understand it takes a lot of money to make a movie, and yes they deserve fair compensation for that. A few years of exclusive rights, definitely but no creative endeavor is made in a vacuum, people copy and use other peoples ideas, to make new creations all the time (I can't think of one that isn't). Once are fair time has passed they should be returned to the public domain so other creations can be made from them. I believe that the laws as they stand are result of a corrupt political system that allows lobbing, not what is in the best interest of society.

I do however think a lot of the cost of making a movie feeds into itself, buying rights to stories, paying actors, directors, producers millions. These costs are because movies can make a lot of money, and everybody wants their cut, so if the story, actor, director, ... is famous enough it almost guarantees success.

I think these costs, are actually killing the movie industry, they not conducive to creating new and initiative stories but rather run by accountants, that produce the same stories over and over again because they know they will sell. If you are investing $100 million you do not want small chance of success. The only way to reduce the cost of movies is to force them to be competitive.

Apart from all that just because it is wrong doesn't make it stealing, just like it doesn't make it rape.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[suupaabaka]

While I fully understand and agree with most of your points, you aren't addressing my argument, here.

Sure, copyright infringement could lead to people producing less of that medium. Or it could lead to an adjustment of the pricing mechanism or content delivery, so that there's more effort required to infringe than to consume legally (Netflix is a great example of this).

But copyright infringement is not theft, you are not physically removing something from someone's possession. They still have it; now, you just have it too.

Copyright infringement is not theft, nor is it "theft of potential", it's simply copyright infringement.

Just as a side note, I pay for everything I consume. I can afford to, and there are enough convenient delivery mechanisms to make it worth the payment.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[silentcoder]

Except for the bit where the people who pirate are mostly movie lovers and very often go to see it in the cinema as well, hell sometimes before pirating. Watch it on the big screen once with friends/a date - and download a copy to rewatch multiple times.

That is something they never factor in - the reality is that piracy has, if anything, most likely INCREASED movie profits.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[fuzznutz]

The crux of the issue is that while copyright absolutists claim the high moral ground, they have very little popular support short of those who make their living off copyright or have fantasies of becoming fabulously wealthy because of it. People choose the path of least resistance nearly every time and observing copyright generally is that path. When it is not, they have no qualms about ignoring it.

I knew this to be the case when I had a fairly computer illiterate 70 something explain to me how she had discovered how to pirate music and now had a large collection. She is an accountant with an accountant's typical mindset and otherwise follows the rules blindly. She explained to me with the zeal of a proselytiser. In a different case, I had to laugh my ass off when I found out that another man I know, who is a software development manager and makes crazy big money, pirates video games. He rails against pirating movies and music and has forbidden it at his house, but I guess software is okay.

Human nature does not see a moral equivalence between taking someone's property (theft) and copying their ideas without compensation. Copying does not "cost" the victim anything in real terms, in the same way that a lost sale does not actually "cost" the seller anything. It is the moral equivalent of duplicating a restaurant's recipes at home. However, restaurants cannot litigate since recipes have no copyright protection. Since no one expects copyright privilege in the restaurant industry, no one rises up in arms screaming about the "theft" of Red Lobster dishes.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[stealth_finger]

You do understand that when they make a movie, it takes a lot of effort and money, right? And, if everyone goes "hey, it's not theft", then they won't get that money, right? And then they won't have either the money or inclination to make you the next movie. Got that? No more great movies for you to copy without paying.

Maybe they should start making some decent, original, compelling films instead of rehashing 80s/90s stuff and making endless superhero films. Most of the shit they put out these days isn't even worth downloading. Sure, the odd good one slips through and they should be fully supported to encourage more, but yeah, 90% of Hollywood's output is pure garbage.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[stealth_finger]

All logic and semantics be damned; the law is clear.

The law said slavery was right and good. The law said that women being forbidden to vote was right and good. The law said that dark skinned people were to ride on the back of the bus, and use separate bathrooms, and drink from separate fountains. The law says that "interstate commerce" means "intrastate commerce." The law was, and remains, completely clear on these and similarly wrongheaded matters. And in so doing, it is completely, utterly, wrong. As is precisely the case here.

Irrelevant. The law tells you what you can and cannot do, doesn't matter if it's subjectively right or wrong that's for future people to decide and change the law accordingly but until then, then law doesn't give a shit. Manslaughter isn't murder and copyright infringement isn't theft.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[nine-times]

All logic and semantics be damned; the law is clear.

The logic is pretty clear, too: It's not theft. Theft is when you take something away from another person. If I have a painting, and you take it away from me, that's theft. If I have a painting, and you look at it and derive pleasure from looking at it, that's not theft. It doesn't matter if I intended to sell you tickets, or use the painting in some commercial setting, looking at it still isn't theft. Taking a picture so you can look at it later is not theft. Even if I sell copies of that picture, I still haven't stolen the painting. If I paint a copy of the painting and sell that fake painting as the real thing, that's still technically not theft. Forgery, yes. Fraud? Sure. Theft? No.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand it takes a lot of money to make a movie, and yes they deserve fair compensation for that. .

no they don't, they need to make a good product... I could go blow all my money on crack and it doesn't mean I deserve some kind of credit for it, spending $ != returns.

Re:I'll tell you where the theft is

[sixsixtysix]

I hope you don't buy any content second-hand because once a retail copy has been sold, the creators get nothing more from that.

Ways to reduce piracy

[jonwil]

Here are some suggestions for the MPAA as ways they can reduce the piracy of their films:
1.Stop making tickets so expensive. Every time ticket prices go up, there will be people who now say "I am not paying that much to see xyz movie, I will pirate it instead". Reducing ticket prices will (all other things being equal) lead to more bums in seats and more revenue for the studios.
2.Eliminate the delays between the worldwide release of a film and the local release of a film in various countries (last years movie "Pixels" came out on the 23rd/24th of July in most of the world but didn't come out in Australia until the 10th of September just to give one example).
3.Make older content more widely available on home video format. There are movies I want to add to my extensive DVD collection but are unable to acquire for any amount of money as they are simply unavailable at all, leaving piracy as the only option to watch these films. Some other films are available in the USA but not in Australia (meaning I have to purchase a copy from overseas and deal with DVD region coding and stuff which makes piracy look more attractive). Oh and not charging a fortune for DVD copies of films might help as well...

The Anti-movie industry Resistance manifesto!

[fyngyrz]

I do it because I want the movie industry to die.

Just remember, the movie industry wants you to die too, metaphorically speaking; and they have law, punishment, and money on their side. They can break you financially; they can have you sent away; they can see to it that you become highly undesirable to employers. And the kicker is, they really, really want to do those things to you and all those like you.

I applaud your willingness to fight for what you want. I will also applaud when they catch you and, in their willingness to fight, ruin your life. Where's my popcorn? I'm going to need some salt and a glass of Mountain Dew, too. :)

Re:The Anti-movie industry Resistance manifesto!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to watch it, just pay for the fucking thing, OK?

Re:The Anti-movie industry Resistance manifesto!

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

I will watch it first, and then decide whether or not it was good enough to be worth buying a copy.

I wouldn't bother doing this if prices were reasonable.

Re:The Anti-movie industry Resistance manifesto!

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie industry is less dangerous to pirates than the threat from terror attacks.

In fact, it's almost less dangerous to them than ninjas.

> And the kicker is, they really, really want to do those things to you and all those like you.

In that case, they aren't reinvesting very much of that record income to do it. See:
      https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-revenue-up-as-war-on-piracy-cranks-up-131125/
      http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/mpaa-reports-loss-of-4-4-million-for-2013-1201358613/
      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2515280/mpaa-irs-form-990-for-2014.pdf

What they really want is for people to believe that they want to do that.
I guess they succeeded with you...

Re:The Anti-movie industry Resistance manifesto!

[fbobraga]

it kind of remembered me of tax evasion, but it's a complete different thing: a applaud your post (but I'm seriously against tax evasion!)

Pirated != lost sale (obvious)

[millertym]

This seems like the most obvious thing in the world. But the lawyers and executives of the entertainment world don't want to accept the reality that when someone pirates their stuff it doesn't equal a lost sale. Not even close. The majority of the pirates would not suddenly go drop money on the product if they could not pirate. They would just do without because they don't care that much.

If you care and you can afford it you buy the product.
If you care and you can't afford it you don't buy the product.
If you don't care and can afford it you don't buy the product.
If you don't care and you can't afford it you don't buy the product.

Re:Pirated != lost sale (obvious)

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not *quite* true - there's definitely a continuum of both caring and affording. For instance, I'm happy to pay for netflix, even though I could absolutely torrent everything on netflix, because netflix is reasonably priced, convenient, and I'm happy to support it. But I'm not paying 240 bucks a year just to watch Game of Thrones, so torrenting it is. I can absolutely *afford* 240 bucks a year, I'm just not *paying* it, cause screw those guys. If it were a lot cheaper than that, though, I'd probably say sure, why not.

It's absolutely true that piracy does not necessarily equal lost sales, but it doesn't necessarily *not*, either - *some* pirates, for any given show, would probably pay full price if they couldn't pirate the show, and some fraction of the rest would probably pay some partial price less than the current full price if they could. (I would, for some shows I watch, especially if I could give the money directly to the people responsible for the specific shows instead of it getting eaten up mostly by overpaid execs and crap.)

Netflixbox and chill.

[Anonymous Coward]

$12 tickets + $10 container of popcorn + $5 drinks can go eff itself.

With those prices, I'm patient enough to wait to spend $2.60 something on a redbox blu-ray that the whole fam can watch.

Same old "/.".

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy Fails To Prevent Another Box Office Record

Oh the same old slashdot bullshit. It's not the one's you hear about that should concern people. It's all the small timers who don't have the money or time to defend themselves. "Piracy succeeded in closing down another artist" isn't attention grabbing, but anything that makes one think they're sticking it to the man is.

Subject of Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I support the pragmatic approach. Can't stop piracy, so just put in enough effort to make piracy less enticing.

That has many forms, the best of which is easy to access product. Is it easier to watch a movie on the whole legally? Can you find a copy of it at a Redbox, Netflix, or some other store? Are you asking someone to buy additional subscriptions on top of what they may have to watch your movie, even if other additional features don't matter to them?

There is also product quality. In terms of movie, do you have unskippable segments that require a person to wait to view what they want? Do you package songs no one wants to jack up the price of an album, knowing few would want to pay at all for those bundled ones? Do you make poor edits of originals and limit the release of other and possibly better editions?

They should focus primarily at those that sell pirated material, such as the person on the street corner or torrent sites that promote piracy and have ads. Going after the downloader is on the whole, just a scare tactic which is annoying to everyone involved. Each court case I've read about either is a settlement before going to court, or an absurd financial punishment to make an example. Just makes people hate the companies more, and more likely to want to spite them.

why measure in dollars?

[i.r.id10t]

Maybe instead of focusing on dollar amounts, they should focus on the ratio of tickets available (seats in theatre * showings/day * days) to the number of tickets sold. After all, with ticket prices the way they are now there is no comparing a movie from the 70s - lets say Star Wars on opening weekend at a whopping 1.5 million, essentially petty cash in todays numbers - to anything released today. Oh, but the first SW movie was unknown - but Empire Strikes Back grossed a big $4.9 million on its opening weekend... still pocket change compared to The Force Awakens with $247.9 million on its opening weekend.... numbers pulled from http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...

I'm sorry, but you need to re-read the summary.

[Bootsy Collins]

First, take your meds and calm down. Second . . .reread the summary. The summary author wrote: "It begs the question whether or not piracy is truly killing the movie business." That phrasing clearly demonstrates that the term is used in the incorrect form (as the equivalent of "raises the question"). HTH.

Prices & Claims

[jitterman]

For goodness' sake. Not taking inflation (even modest 1.5-2% matters) and / or higher ticket prices into account makes - as all higher-functioning life forms know (which apparently includes very few people who work in the higher levels of the Hollywood) - any claims of "ALL TIME HIGHEST" just a meaningless bunch of pablum, like many of the industry's products themselves.

Cursed with knowing what "begs the question" means

[Anonymous Coward]

I am cursed with knowing what "begs the question" actually means, forced to forever roams the Earth correcting other people's misuse of the phrase.

That's not begging the question

[paiute]

love, Mom

Sad, sad news

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one of you has been paying the MPAA again? Ok, old habits die hard, but this year let's not finance the war on our communication infrastructure, mkay?

No joke!

[Dcnjoe60]

Claiming piracy is hurting the movie business is like claiming street drugs are hurting the pharmaceutical business. In both cases, people partaking in the illicit activity are unlikely to be participating in the licit one.

Don't beg a question

[Sir Holo]

FTA: former U.S. senator, MPAA chairman and CEO Chris Dodd said. "To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the movies has been greatly exaggerated," Dodd said. It begs the question whether or not piracy is truly killing the movie business -- the MPAA insists it is.

He actually spoke the truth – unintentionally.

To "beg the question" means to "use circular logic". As in, when you are accusing someone of making BS arguments that rely on their initial (wrong) assumption.

Who would have thought that the MPAA CEO would actually speak the truth about 'piracy'?

This logic works for me too

[Dunbal]

According to Dodd, the box office would be more healthy to the tune of $1.5 billion if piracy could be brought under control.

And if Hollywood hired ME to make movies instead of this DiCaprio fellow, I'd be richer by quite a few million too.

Piracy costs the industry 3.906% of their business

[Anonymous Coward]

By their own words...

"According to Dodd, the box office would be more healthy to the tune of $1.5 billion if piracy could be brought under control."

"The movie industry has reported global box office records reached $38.4 billion in 2015, up 5% on 2014's total, according to the MPAA's Theatrical Market Statistics report."

38.4 Billion, 2015 revenue. Estimated loss due to piracy: 1.5 Billion.

In perspective... 1.5 / 38.4 = not a whole hell of a lot of a "giant impact" on the industry, now is it?

Love how the wording doesn't highlight how insignificant it is in a 1 to 1 comparison.

Hey

[Torp]

Does this press release pretend there are movies worth watching still made?
I haven't noticed more than 1-2 per year lately. It's a miracle they're still making money.

Cinema ticket should get you 80% off the DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you could use your cinema ticket stub to buy the BR or DVD at 20% of the full rate. Going to the cinema would be incentivised as well as picking up the DVD at a later date.

However in my case, I don't want any more discs. Files is what I want, and there's just no easy way to get a file of a movie without going through hoops, ripping, making sure the encoding is the right quality, naming the file. Oh, hang on! That's already been done - click - and it's free - click (rubs hands).

The inconvenience to me is worth something, so I download. However, pirated games are a pain to get and run, but steam is a few clicks and there's the game. I never pirate games.

No, YOUR real problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is how EASILY I made a bigmouth bullshit artist in YOU "EAT YOUR WORDS", chump -> https://slashdot.org/comments....

* Tell us, won't you - How did they taste?

(LMAO!)

APK

P.S.=> A bit like the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" as I rammed those words right back down your throat, spiced with YOUR FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH, perhaps? apk

What we don't need

[w1zz4]

Another monthly sub service

Re:Cursed with knowing what "begs the question" me

[stealth_finger]

I am cursed with knowing what "begs the question" actually means, forced to forever roams the Earth correcting other people's misuse of the phrase.

Poor little you, lots of people know what it's supposed to mean and then take it for how it's meant. It's a stupid phrase that should mean begs (for) the question (to be asked). You presume the conclusion that others don't share your 'curse' when they're happy enough to just get on with it.

Damn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I will have to turn to my army of minions for new ideas! Perhaps professor Subtle has an idea?

They are oblivous of what is happening around them

[Nightjed]

I stopped going to the cinema years ago, ppl make the whole experience intolerable these days, babies crying, ppl checking their 90" phones all the time, seats that have more chance to be uncomfortable than not

Why would i do that, when i have a 47" tv in my living room, air conditioner, a popcorn making kit, a fridge and i can pause and go to the bathroom at any time ?
I even save the driving time, the gas cost and the extra cost of the junk food i would probably consume if i went there

On demand services are the future of cinema, the Napster guy is telling you that, if you had heard him the last time apple might now have stolen your business from you, altho that whole talk about set up boxes is ridiculous, stop making it harder than it needs to be, look at Netflix, go online, put your paypal or credit card info and you are in

But sure, keep pointing at the dreaded pirates, Im sure those are the ones that will take you business away from you and not Netflix or their competitors. I used to sail the caribbean for my weekend entertainment a few years ago and you know what ? streaming has made it so much more convenient that im happy to pay for the service and forget the hassle of searching the net, handling flashdrives or looking for subtitltes, that is how you end piracy, with better service.

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

"To paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the movies has been greatly exaggerated,"
that's not really a paraphrase, I don't recall any discussion of the movie industry by mark twain. it is a riff on a paraphrase.

commentsubjectsaredumb

[Falos]

Deprivation.

Half of you in that hour-long squabble up there could've saved some effort by adding it to your vocabulary. It's hard to make a point when you spend an extra paragraph trying to explain a distinction that we already have a word for. If you want a point to get through, concise is the only way. "Verbose micdrop" is an oxymoron. I don't twitter (or any socnet) but I'm pretty sure it's an art over there.

Anyway, regardless of whether piracy is "right" or whatever, the article's point is to drop hard numbers about whether it's "important". Significant, whatever.

MPAA is Obsolete

[Zeekort]

The MPAA in their current form is not needed in the 21st century and they know it and they don't want to change either. That's why they'll always talk up piracy as killing the industry so they can remain in power without changing. They already know they can't stop legitimate online streaming services so piracy is the only thing left that they can talk about and since the numbers don't add up they'll keep yelling louder and louder about it to try and discredit the actual numbers in the court of public opinion.

Piracy has been around for as long as the industry has been around and gosh darn it, it has somehow managed to survive with more people buying a copy of a movie or using some legal method to watch it rather than getting a bootleg copy of it from the pirates. The MPAA is as always full of shit when they start barking about the evils of piracy. So what if a movie brings in a few less millions of dollars of pure profit? We're not talking about not being able to cover costs of paying people to create the movie.

Honestly, when was the last time piracy caused a movie to not be able to be produced or not make enough to cover the costs? I honestly can't find a single case of this where it was clearly piracy and not mismanagement or the movie just being so crappy that it didn't sell that caused a studio to not make enough to cover the cost of producing the movie.

The MPAA is a relic from the past that's almost a hundred years old.

They largely aren't needed anymore. Nowadays people can make a movie at home and use the Internet to distribute it to a world wide audience without needing the help of a studio with ties to the MPAA. Content creators can also now work with Netflix and others to get their content out to consumers if they don't want to distribute it themselves.

They do help out a little with the ratings system, but only a little because the movie ratings are extremely biased to benefit the major studios while hurting the smaller ones. In some ways it's better than not having a ratings system at all, but it's also in a position to be abused and do more harm than good (which it already is).