This paper makes reference to video stores. It is widely known that video stores are closing down to cheap DVD's and online rental sites not online piracy.
people who buy pirated DVD's would never buy legal DVD's. They would either wait for it to come on TV or get a loan ofit from friends. Piracy is not a new thing, it's always been here since the advent of Video. What's new is that Hollywood is now producing more expensive films, projecting higher revenues and with a more literate population can communicate the idea that pirates are responsible for decreasing profits.
The point is that society is slowly going through a transition from analouge to digital. The technology is here but the infrastructure is not in place to deliver it. The pirates are having a field day and Hollywood is hurting. It is change and if Hollywood can't survive then tough.
Ok lets look at full text:
'Because popular motion pictures are expensive to produce but cost almost nothing to illegally reproduce, they are a favorite target for pirates.' So pirates sells movies because they are expenisive to make?
'What is true for personal watercraft is equally true for motion pictures. If the revenue generated by making motion pictures increases (in this case, not by higher demand but by a decrease in piracy), movie companies will make more movies, invest in higher quality, broader distribution or more marketing, or some combination of these activities in order to capture more profits. [See Sidebar "A Decrease In Piracy Expands Production"]....As more movies are made, or more is invested in making, marketing and distributing movies, the people and companies that supply movies will make more money. These include, for example, ad agencies, who sell more copy to newspapers and television promoting the films, and the newspapers and television stations that attract the increased revenue.
The benefits flow downstream as well. Video retailers, for example, will sell and rent more titles. Movie theaters will sell more tickets and more popcorn. Corn growers earn more profits, and can buy more farm equipment. And so on. '
So the middleman is cut out and highly paid admen, highly paid execs etc etc. What about the corn growers. Movies+popcorn, whether it is pirated or not, you can't beat a good movie with popcorn.
not a significant part of British popular culture but an example of british popular culture since Britian is made of 4 countries and regions that have distinctive cultures and customs.
It's as British as fish and chips, a pint of beer and a curry and a jolly boys day outing to the seaside.
You could look at it as counter-productive. I put a DVD into my player. I have a wait about 3 minutes with these anti-piracy adverts becausing I can't jump to the main menu. It spoils my experience of watching a DVD so start buying a pirate DVD.
BTW, what's all that about with that Superman anti-piracy advert and all those nutmegs shouting and cheering in the audience? Does that happen in reality? Yeah, this is hollywood and even with anti-piracy advert they have to put in that Hollywood glitz....
Hollwyood needs to get back to basics and the only way it can do that is more films, more choice, less risk. This can only be done through making movies more cheaply. This will help develop talent, more chance of developing franchies and offset the costs of piracy as movies will go into profit easier.
Hollywood also needs to keep an eye on technology and develop a business model based on this. Although the technology is here the infrastructure is not. They need to work with ISP's, the googles and dare I say the microsofts so that they can provide a service that people will pay to watch movies rather than pirate them.
I would love to see in the near future, where I can watch a movie at a press of a button, I can browse online and get recommendations to other films based on the film I watch and then at a press of a button I can watch those movies. I can also discuss online to other people who enjoy a particular movie and afterwards click a button and watch the movies they recommended. I want to do this where I don't need to wait more than a few seconds and at a price I can afford.
This of course is pie and the sky stuff at the moment and takes the joy of finding out going out to the cinema to see a movie.
as most DVD's retail will retail eventually for $5 so please don't give out as much hot air as Hollywood, we have a problem at moment with global warming you know
This isn't troll. The BBC advertises this extensively on its TV stations so that it doesn't get marginalised when analogue TV is phased out. It is in effect abusing it's monolopy status as a publicy funded body.
The BBC can be described as a monolopy as it does not have any competition. I say this as it is pubicly funded and does not rely on advertising incomes. It can therefore marginalise other competitors who are fighthing each other to get shrinking advertising revenues as a lot of internet traffic goes to the BBC.
Why should it then be in the position to form partnerships like this that can have a profound affect to online content in the years to come?
Apart from comedy and news, the content of BBC is mediocre. Its fame outside of the UK is to shows of the past like Monty python, Fawlty towers, only fools & horses, Allo Allo etc. Would the BBC have the B@lls to commission shows like The Shield, The Saprono's or Crime story I think not.
The other british TV channel, Channel 4, known out of UK for it's film arm, Film four is far superior in terms of drama, entertainment and documentaries. You might have heard of Junkyard Wars which was based on the C4 series Scrapheap challanges.
As to $12 dollars a month, that is a lot of money to a single mother or a pensioner. TV is the only form of entertainment for a lot of people and they can't go without it.
As to the the point of payment. You Americans have a saying 'No taxation without representation'. Although publicly funded, the BBC is not representative to the millions of people in the UK who pay for it. It's programming is biased towards people in the south east of England and in London particular.
Another point is that I watch very little TV. When I do I one watch BBC for the news and the occasional movie. I use my TV mainly to watch DVD's. Why should I pay money for a service I rarely use?
Slashdot Mirror
This paper makes reference to video stores. It is widely known that video stores are closing down to cheap DVD's and online rental sites not online piracy.
From what I read on this, it is hazy to say the least but how can you put patents on ideas and concepts assocaited with movies?
people who buy pirated DVD's would never buy legal DVD's. They would either wait for it to come on TV or get a loan ofit from friends. Piracy is not a new thing, it's always been here since the advent of Video. What's new is that Hollywood is now producing more expensive films, projecting higher revenues and with a more literate population can communicate the idea that pirates are responsible for decreasing profits.
The point is that society is slowly going through a transition from analouge to digital. The technology is here but the infrastructure is not in place to deliver it. The pirates are having a field day and Hollywood is hurting. It is change and if Hollywood can't survive then tough.
Ok lets look at full text: 'Because popular motion pictures are expensive to produce but cost almost nothing to illegally reproduce, they are a favorite target for pirates.' So pirates sells movies because they are expenisive to make? 'What is true for personal watercraft is equally true for motion pictures. If the revenue generated by making motion pictures increases (in this case, not by higher demand but by a decrease in piracy), movie companies will make more movies, invest in higher quality, broader distribution or more marketing, or some combination of these activities in order to capture more profits. [See Sidebar "A Decrease In Piracy Expands Production"] ....As more movies are made, or more is invested in making, marketing and distributing movies, the people and companies that supply movies will make more money. These include, for example, ad agencies, who sell more copy to newspapers and television promoting the films, and the newspapers and television stations that attract the increased revenue.
The benefits flow downstream as well. Video retailers, for example, will sell and rent more titles. Movie theaters will sell more tickets and more popcorn. Corn growers earn more profits, and can buy more farm equipment. And so on. '
So the middleman is cut out and highly paid admen, highly paid execs etc etc. What about the corn growers. Movies+popcorn, whether it is pirated or not, you can't beat a good movie with popcorn.
its not my fault you can't understand my accent
that is how it is pronounced in Scotland
nah, you're mixing him up with Mr Castro or am I mixing up with a wisecracker?
I posted a comment in Hollywood and piracy about the use of technology. . YouTube and their likes are another example of generating interest in movies. Why can't Hollywood and the entertainment industry embrace rather than fight them? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6651916009 965516351&q=bronson+death+wish+body+count
You wait until it drops down in price then buy it. It's the way the market works.
not a significant part of British popular culture but an example of british popular culture since Britian is made of 4 countries and regions that have distinctive cultures and customs. It's as British as fish and chips, a pint of beer and a curry and a jolly boys day outing to the seaside.
Prime as in Option 5 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prime
You could look at it as counter-productive. I put a DVD into my player. I have a wait about 3 minutes with these anti-piracy adverts becausing I can't jump to the main menu. It spoils my experience of watching a DVD so start buying a pirate DVD. BTW, what's all that about with that Superman anti-piracy advert and all those nutmegs shouting and cheering in the audience? Does that happen in reality? Yeah, this is hollywood and even with anti-piracy advert they have to put in that Hollywood glitz....
what's all this tomfoolery? I made a comment that Doctor Who follows in the line of traditional great british entertainment. You can't beat it.
Hollwyood needs to get back to basics and the only way it can do that is more films, more choice, less risk. This can only be done through making movies more cheaply. This will help develop talent, more chance of developing franchies and offset the costs of piracy as movies will go into profit easier. Hollywood also needs to keep an eye on technology and develop a business model based on this. Although the technology is here the infrastructure is not. They need to work with ISP's, the googles and dare I say the microsofts so that they can provide a service that people will pay to watch movies rather than pirate them. I would love to see in the near future, where I can watch a movie at a press of a button, I can browse online and get recommendations to other films based on the film I watch and then at a press of a button I can watch those movies. I can also discuss online to other people who enjoy a particular movie and afterwards click a button and watch the movies they recommended. I want to do this where I don't need to wait more than a few seconds and at a price I can afford. This of course is pie and the sky stuff at the moment and takes the joy of finding out going out to the cinema to see a movie.
A prime example of traditional great british entertainment
What with all this hot air. Boom...boom...If you're going flog it, flog it like a dead horse
as most DVD's retail will retail eventually for $5 so please don't give out as much hot air as Hollywood, we have a problem at moment with global warming you know
All these anti piracy adverts at cinema's and on DVD's and people who buy pirate movies never go to the cinema or buy legal DVD's.
Hollywood needs to start getting its house in order before it can critise piracy for it's falling profits. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/media/1 9hollywood.html?ex=1313640000&en=a3d7d097e8c79a00& ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Good cover for given the green light to big budget dud's and over-estimating box-office returns.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports. cfm?report=monthgmulti&requesttimeout=500
Look at the figures. BBC has 2 terresterial and about 5 digital channels. That is why it has such a large viewing percentage. If you compare it to its competitors, the most obvious one BBC and ITV1, it isn't more popular
This isn't troll. The BBC advertises this extensively on its TV stations so that it doesn't get marginalised when analogue TV is phased out. It is in effect abusing it's monolopy status as a publicy funded body.
The BBC can be described as a monolopy as it does not have any competition. I say this as it is pubicly funded and does not rely on advertising incomes. It can therefore marginalise other competitors who are fighthing each other to get shrinking advertising revenues as a lot of internet traffic goes to the BBC. Why should it then be in the position to form partnerships like this that can have a profound affect to online content in the years to come?
Apart from comedy and news, the content of BBC is mediocre. Its fame outside of the UK is to shows of the past like Monty python, Fawlty towers, only fools & horses, Allo Allo etc. Would the BBC have the B@lls to commission shows like The Shield, The Saprono's or Crime story I think not. The other british TV channel, Channel 4, known out of UK for it's film arm, Film four is far superior in terms of drama, entertainment and documentaries. You might have heard of Junkyard Wars which was based on the C4 series Scrapheap challanges. As to $12 dollars a month, that is a lot of money to a single mother or a pensioner. TV is the only form of entertainment for a lot of people and they can't go without it. As to the the point of payment. You Americans have a saying 'No taxation without representation'. Although publicly funded, the BBC is not representative to the millions of people in the UK who pay for it. It's programming is biased towards people in the south east of England and in London particular. Another point is that I watch very little TV. When I do I one watch BBC for the news and the occasional movie. I use my TV mainly to watch DVD's. Why should I pay money for a service I rarely use?