MPAA Touts Record Year For Hollywood

proudhawk writes "A blog posting in p2pnet today catches MPAA boss Dan Glickman at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas crowing about Hollywood's profitable year: 'Today, we stand on a new mountaintop, and I have to say: I like the view... We had about 5 percent growth in both the domestic and worldwide box office, all-time highs on both fronts reminding us once again that good stories well told always find a place in our hearts, our lives and our local theaters.' What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?"

scapegoat

[User 956 (568564)]

What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?

the "ravages of online piracy" excuse is for years when they knowingly put out complete garbage and don't want to own up to it.

Re:scapegoat

[Barny (103770)]

Not to mention "the ravages" speech is for the press and legislators, the "zomg we did well this year" is for shareholders and equity firms :)

Re:scapegoat

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Seems to me the world would be a better place if they got that backwards one year.

I wish I was in a position to organize just such a screw-up. Just swap the press releases...

No, wait, I don't condone such underhanded tactics. May as well be blunt and honest. Where's my cluebat?

Re:scapegoat

[cp.tar (871488)]

What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?

the "ravages of online piracy" excuse is for years when they knowingly put out complete garbage and don't want to own up to it.

No... you see, all this anti-piracy legislation and activism seems to be getting Results.

Therefore, they will do more in the same vein.

Re:scapegoat

[diggyk (900186)]

He said record BOX OFFICE sales, not DVD or Video sales. Piracy hurts Hollywood in the ongoing sales and royalties business. And it isn't the Hollywood execs that lose the most: it is the people like union workers, cameramen, grips, and even sysadmins that lose their jobs. The execs always stay rich.

Re:scapegoat

[rhyder128k (1051042)]

I don't have mod points. But absolutely. I don't think that anyone ever claimed that movie piracy was set effect box office takings. Still /. keeps rolling this sort of thing out as "proof".

To look at it another way, if takings were down because the content was rubbish, why is it that profits for the thing that can't be pirated have increased and the profits for the thing that can be pirated are down?

Re:scapegoat

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

why is it that profits for the thing that can't be pirated have increased and the profits for the thing that can be pirated are down?

Or, to look at it yet another way, you're inferring cause and effect, Mr. Glickman.

Re:

[themacks (1197889)]

Because they saw it in the theater and decided it wasn't worth buying.

Re:scapegoat

[schon (31600)]

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that movie piracy was set effect box office takings

You [michaelgeist.ca] think [fightfilmtheft.org] wrong. [havocscope.com]

They've been crying for years that camcorded copies are reducing box-office take.

Seriously, if you're gonna post complete and utter bullshit, you should make sure that it's not to an audience that knows it's complete and utter bullshit.

Re:scapegoat

[slashname3 (739398)]

As you point out they are talking about box office receipts only. But lets see in the last year they upped the price of tickets at those box offices by more than the 5% they are claiming it increased. So with fewer people going to the movies they still recorded an increase at the box office due to the increased prices placed on those that are still going to the movies.

Seems like a 5% increase is at about the same rate or lower than inflation.

Wake me up again when they report NUMBERS OF TICKETS SOLD as the metric vs. the amount of money collected. That would be a better measure showing if they actually increased viewership or not.

Re:scapegoat

[MobileTatsu-NJG (946591)]

"Piracy hurts Hollywood in the ongoing sales and royalties business. And it isn't the Hollywood execs that lose the most: it is the people like union workers, cameramen, grips, and even sysadmins that lose their jobs."

Funny. Those guys have already been paid by the time the movie is released. The execs, however, are the ones that stand to make money by the continual sales of completed works.

That is beside the point, however. The DVD industry has an 'open your mouth and close your eyes' business model. You cannot take a movie back if it sucks. So long as that is the case, there'll always be a 'market' for piracy. They're attempting to fight it by making that demand even stronger.

I work in Hollywood and frankly piracy isn't on my list of job-related fears at all. The execs pissing off audiences, however....

Re:

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

All this ignores the facts that

a) compensation levels in hollywood are way above norm.
b) most pirated material would not have been purchased at anywhere near retail prices*
c) a lot of piracy leads to sales that would not have otherwise occured**
d) there are many, many, many forms of entertainment competing for our entertainment time and money***

---

* Filling an ipod at retail- $10,000. This just isn't going to happen. That's after taxes. So that's like taking a $20k cut in pay after taxes. JUST to fill t

You're looking at it wrong.

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

This doesn't contradict the "ravages of piracy" at all. Instead, the MPAA will say, "See, look! We cracked down on pirates and had a record year! CRACK DOWN HARDER!", as a justification for their future activities.

Re:

[Anonymous Freak (16973)]

Exactly.

You know that the first year the recording industry sees a decent increase in sales, instead of saying that their embrace of DRM-free digital downloads was responsible, they will say that their massive crackdown on pirates (arr!) was responsible, and that to further continue the increasing sales, they need to crack down more.

Re:You're looking at it wrong.

[Blkdeath (530393)]

This doesn't contradict the "ravages of piracy" at all. Instead, the MPAA will say, "See, look! We cracked down on pirates and had a record year! CRACK DOWN HARDER!", as a justification for their future activities.

I'm listening to Leonard Cohen as I read your comment, and he just informed me that The poor stay poor, the rich get rich. Thats how it goes. Everybody knows.

Prophetic, that man.

Re:You're looking at it wrong.

[tsa (15680)]

Even Jesus said something in that direction.

Re:You're looking at it wrong.

[jcasper (972898)]

And to show that he wants to crack down harder, he "blasts Net neutrality [variety.com]" in the very next breath, saying that "it would impair the ability of broadband providers to address the serious and rampant piracy problems occurring over their networks today."

Re:You're looking at it wrong.

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

To which I would point out that The Pirate Bay is also setting records. [slyck.com]

Which, you would think, would tend to show not only that the MPAA's anti-piracy tactics are working, but that there isn't really a correlation (positive or negative) between piracy and MPAA profits.

Dream World

[cjfs (1253208)]

What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?

The "reminding us once again that good stories well told always find a place in our hearts, our lives and our local theaters" should have clued you in they weren't talking about current movies ;)

Box office?

[AdamHaun (43173)]

Do "box office" revenues include DVD sales?

Box office sales

[usul294 (1163169)]

They are saying box office revenues increased. Piracy most likely hurts DVD sales and rentals more than going to a theater. There is a big difference between a movie theater and a DIVX movie on you 17 inch LCD monitor, or if you are more crafty, a bigger TV. Its the equivalent of saying "box office revenues went up despite the rampant use of recordable media in the home". From my experience, a movie you go and spend $10 on plus refreshments, and gas (plus potentially someone else's ticket and refreshments) is not something you would download instead.

Re:Box office sales

[Blkdeath (530393)]

They are saying box office revenues increased. Piracy most likely hurts DVD sales and rentals more than going to a theater. There is a big difference between a movie theater and a DIVX movie on you 17 inch LCD monitor, or if you are more crafty, a bigger TV. Its the equivalent of saying "box office revenues went up despite the rampant use of recordable media in the home". From my experience, a movie you go and spend $10 on plus refreshments, and gas (plus potentially someone else's ticket and refreshments) is not something you would download instead.

Well I don't know where you get your downloaded movies, but I can get 720p movies compressed with H.264 accompanied by Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound and enjoy it on my rather nice home theatre system viewed on my 60" Sony HD television set. Oh, and I can watch it on my schedule and serve whatever refreshments suit my own fancy. If I want chicken tika masala, by god I'll have it! And I'll wash it down with a crisp lager, thankyouverymuch.

tikka masala for one

[by Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're making up for never having a date to take to the movies. :P

Re:Box office sales

[by Anonymous Coward]

So you have a $5,000 TV but too cheap to pay $20 a month for unlimited blockbuster dvd and bluray rentals?

Makes more sense in Australia

[svunt (916464)]

If you live in the US, you're still missing out...the films you watch in HD at home aren't the same movies that you can see at the cinema, they're last year's box office stories. Now, here in Australia, a great many films end up on my big screen via an .mkv file on the hard drive well before they hit the local cinema :D

Pointless argument

[edwardpickman (965122)]

No one is saying piracy is having a dramatic affect on film sales yet. It will eventually. Saying it never will is a silly argument because it's had a dramatic affect on music sales. The real point to make would be what would have film sales been without any piracy? It was 5% with piracy what if it was 7% without? 2% a tiny number? Actually no you're talking 200 million in looses if that was the case. Just look at South East Asia and China. Film sales are near zero inspite of US films being very popular. It's virtually a 100% pirated content. If people had to pay $20 instead of $1 or $2 there would be fewer films sold but still the industry is loosing hundreds of millions and conceivably billions in those markets to piracy. The whole argument itself is pointless because people that pirate don't want to change and the industry doesn't want to work for free so as piracy grows like in the music industry they either find another way to make money off films, in film commercials, product placement, etc, or they go out of business. I've yet to hear of another model that can support the industry so likely high budget films will die slowly over the next 20 years. They are preparing to spend hundreds of millions on 3D projection systems to try to hang onto box office growth but it's a desperation move and it won't save theatrical films in the long run. Take away the financial incentives for making movies and you're left with people in the midwest making Star Trek knock offs in their garages and rednecks running their bicycles into trees on Youtube for entertainment.

Re:

[ganjadude (952775)]

there is a HUGE difference is downloading a movie and printing copies and selling them for a profit. some people tend to download first, if they like the movie they will buy it on DVD and if its good enough go see it in the theater. Lets face it a good movie is still better on the big screen than on a PC. SO all this does IMO is give the producers incentive to stop putting out crap movies, and start making products that are worth something.

Re:Pointless argument

[mlts (1038732)]

The confusion between someone copying a movie from a P2P network for no profit and a criminal organization deliberately making unauthorized counterfeit copies of movies to sell in stores is a difference that a lot of groups want the line blurred.

Counterfeiting is truly theft, as each single counterfeit copy takes a sale away from a genuine firm. The other is not theft, but IP infringement, which is not considered a criminal offense in most countries (although there are a lot of deep pockets wanting to change that.)

Fragmented markets cause pircay

[Freaky Spook (811861)]

No one is saying piracy is having a dramatic affect on film sales yet. It will eventually.

That's partly true I think but the drive in Piracy would be more due to the way the studios try to fragment their markets in different regions, to maximise their own profits.

The internet has made the planet a truly global community and they have to relase globally, not try to stagger around the planet with Theatrical releases/DVD Releases and even different dates for TV premiere's.

In Australia we still cannot get video/TV on iTunes because of this or get access to other such online content because its all being restricted, so many people resort to pirace to see what they want and not wait 3-6 months(Up to a year some times) later.

Like the music industry the movie industry will only end up hurting itself by trying to contain online content rather then let it flourish in an open market, the more they put online for fair prices the more people will pay. Just take phone ring tones as an example of how people are willing to spend money on absolute crap. If more people could get movies at those prices they would be making huge sales.

Re:Pointless argument

[invader_vim (1243902)]

[piracy]'s had a dramatic affect on music sales.

Actually, a joint study by Harvard and University of North Carolina (CNET news story here [com.com], pdf link to original study available from the article) suggests that filesharing has almost zero effect on CD sales. Admittedly it is a few of years old now (March 2004) and is by no means exhaustive; however, the conclusions are still relevant and suggest that there are greater influences on music sales than piracy (despite what the RIAA would like us to believe).

Re:

[CSMatt (1175471)]

The only way to find out how much media those who were studied decided to buy legally is to ask, which is of course is like asking someone if he or she smokes pot. The illicit nature of the act will cause anyone you survey to immediately deny doing such a thing in the first place and many may even appear to take a very pro-enforcement side just to shake off any suspicion.

Re:

[tinkerghost (944862)]

There is another study that correlates p2p network spikes with CD sales numbers. If p2p is really causing a drop in CD sales, there should be a corresponding drop in CD sales. Not only isn't there a drop, there appears to be a slight rise in CD sales following p2p spikes. While there is no doubt that p2p has trimmed off some CD sales, it doesn't appear to be anywhere close to the order of magnitude the RIAA quotes it as.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

Tune in to your local Top 40 station and you'll see that most music today isn't even worth listening to, much less buying.

My hypothesis is that the reason radio sucks so much today is the best artists are going independant, realizing that they have no use, let alone need, for a major label contract. The internet and affordable recording and duplication have made the 20th century record label obsolete, yet the labels still offer the same shitty contracts to artists.

Why would any artist worth his salt today s

Damn those pirates!

[Opportunist (166417)]

Without them, it could have been a 6 percent increase and I could buy a new ferrar... erh, I mean, yeah, right, where is the neck-breaking pirates now?

Seriously, people. The three driving emotions for people are greed, fear and greed. And the more you have, the bigger your greed gets. You have 5 percent increase (when everyone else is struggling to stay in business or have any kind of profit at all)? Doesn't mean jack, you want 6. You want 7. You want 10. And you could have 10 percent more income if it wasn't for all those who copy the content. It would be 15 if you could force people to throw away their VHS tapes. Hell, it could be 30 percent if you could force them to throw away DVDs!

It could be 50 percent if you could make those BluRays die after playing them 10 times. It could be 100 percent if you can make them so they die right after playing the movie once! It could be 200 percent when they couldn't play the movie at all... erh...

Well, if they still buy it that is.

And that's what this is about. The studios want more. They are not satisfied by having more than everyone else, they're not satisfied with having the best year of their existance, they're not satisfied with making a plus when the economy as a whole is struggling to avoid that big bad word that starts with an r and ends in cession. they want to have more than they already have. And they see some way to make more (i.e. crack down on those that copy), so they try to get rid of them. If they found a way to make you pay for every time you watch that movie, they would gladly do so.

And I'm fairly sure the next generation of players will have some sort of internet connection that enforces something like that.

Re:

[sm62704 (957197)]

The three driving emotions for people are greed, fear and greed.

No, not for people. Only for those who worship the almighty dollar. Yes, there are a few at slashdot. But for most people the three driving emotions are fear, despair, and desperation. We are fearful, despairing, and desparate because of the selfish greedheads we produce the wealth for.

It's the kiss of death

[fastgood (714723)]

Five years ago this month, a consortium of VHS tape producers touted a "ticker tape" Christmas season for all-time sales, and DVD have outsold tapes for every single month since March 2003.

Fifteen years before that, the RIAA leaders touted their "record year" for album sales, and CDs immediately supplanted records in 1988 and never looked back.

And thirty years ago in 1978 when Tomita released the final quad 8-track tape, the industry said it was "on track" for the best year ever as it instead saw the multi-track format slip into oblivion.

So when the MPAA touts a shiny year for DVDs, Blu-Ray is probably poised to make them eat their words.

Re:It's the kiss of death

[absoluteflatness (913952)]

The thing is, in your two cases of VHS and 8-track manufacturers, they're tied to the format. The media companies, on the other hand, generally couldn't care less, except in the case of a market being fractured by many competing formats. The RIAA almost certainly made immediate gains from the switch from vinyl to CD, since CD's cost much less to produce. In the same vein, what does the MPAA care that Blu-ray will eventually (possibly) overtake DVD? They're not DVD manufacturers, they make money no matter what the format of the media. Now, there'll possibly be a depression in total video media sales as people are more reluctant to buy soon-to-be-obsolete discs, but also don't yet wish to upgrade to Blu-ray. Then again, Blu-ray players will play DVDs, so maybe that won't be the case. At any rate, the comments referenced in the article were about box office sales, not video.

They don't have profit, do they?

[davolfman (1245316)]

Wait a second? Isn't this the same industry that cooks the books to never run a profit on movies so they don't have to pay their people? I assume these profits must be including all those "services" they charge themselves for. To me that seems a liability. It seems like they just gave the final data points necessary for all those people promised net points of nothing to do the math and find what their movies really made.

Re:

[nexuspal (720736)]

You are right on this. NEVER get into a contract that says you get the "profits" unless all of the costs are defined and agreed upon in advance. If you do get into this type of contract, the product will amost certainly never be profitable, no matter how many millions it makes...

Yeah, or....

[Dracos (107777)]

good stories well told

How many of the 20 top grossing movies of 2007 were not adaptations, remakes, or franchise installments? How many actually involved original creative development?

For that matter, how many were over-hyped drivel titled "[adjective] Movie" or starring Will Ferrell?

Hollywood is out of ideas. Period.

Concert Sales Aren't Tanking Either

[TheMiddleRoad (1153113)]

People pay for the big screen. People pay for live shows. You can't make a digital copy of a 60ft screen and you can't make a digital copy of being in a crowd, watching a live band. The only reasons theater sales drop are: 1. Crappy films 2. Obnoxious theater goers 3. Cell phones (see number 2)

Re:

[TheMiddleRoad (1153113)]

Yes, pretty much. Go ahead and watch 'On Golden Pond' all you want. I wanna see Rambo cut assholes in half with a machine gun on the big screen with 30 speakers of screaming. I don't pay for content; easy piracy has destroyed its value. I pay for the experience.

Oh...

[SharpFang (651121)]

Income break-up:

- Cinema licenses: 5%
- TV licenses: 25%
- DVD sales: 10%
- Litigation: 60%

Keeping up with Inflation?

[giminy (94188)]

We had about 5 percent growth in both the domestic and worldwide box office, all-time highs on both fronts reminding us once again that good stories well told always find a place in our hearts, our lives and our local theaters.' What ever happened to the ravages of online piracy?"

Not sure about the ravages of online piracy, but inflation in the US [inflationdata.com] was about 3% last year, and the projections for current US inflation put it at about 4.6%. I'm not sure if their growth estimate takes the increase in CPI into account. Mayhaps someone with a more global view on inflation rates could chime in and give us an adjusted Hollywood growth rate?

Reid

strike

[pdunning (1159915)]

Hollywood's most profitable year

Well then those writers can go back on strike.

Re:

[Corpuscavernosa (996139)]

Moral Bankruptcy. People who put out the diarrhea they call movies have the moral flexibility of cooked pasta.

Or perhaps it's merely good business in the midst of the borderline-retarded masses. Hell, Norbit made around $159m in the theater with an additional $42m in DVD sales. Why put forth the effort to make a great movie when you can heap steaming piles of shit into a movie theater and make tons of cash?

Oh and on a side-note, it's one thing to get duped into seeing a shitty movie in the theater.

Re:Big surprise

[The Evil Couch (621105)]

There are actually some very high quality films coming out this year. Iron Man? The Dark Knight?

Yeah. Good job, Hollywood. Way to take a chance on a pair of unknown characters, with only 50 years of history and associated revenues far into the millions each.

I'm being facetious, of course; Iron Man's only been around for 45 years.

Re:Get a fucking job!

[cp.tar (871488)]

GET A FUCKING JOB, WORTHLESS LOAFER!

I hate parasites like you that refuse to pay for what they use.

(Same AC)

You must really hate yourself, for you don't appear to be a subscriber here on /.

Re:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I don't feel the outrage against them that I do the RIAA. They're more annoying than evil in their tactics.

Maybe ... but keep firmly in mind that it was the MPAA that authored the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They're a dangerous outfit, in fact because they're more subtle than the RIAA they're even more dangerous. Don't let them off the hook.

Re:

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

Well, I was just throwing out round figures. $25K certainly is not enough for a family of 4, but I know that for some individual folks, $25K would be plenty to live on. I am a perfect example -- single, no dependents, and no expensive tastes. I don't buy fancy clothes, I don't eat lobster or filet mignon, and when I have a car (I currently do not), it ain't no Lexus. I have survived most of my adult life on less than $25K a year, and I ain't starving. (In fact, I could stand to lose 20 or 25 pounds). And, o