King Kong vs. Movie Pirates 485
Caoz writes "The New York Times is running an interesting article about movie piracy with Peter Jackson providing some comments. There a couple of comments that I thought were surprising. Like an executive admitting that file sharers are not the biggest threat to Hollywood. From the article: 'There is a very dark, black cloud in this game. It's not in the hands of kids who live next door to you; it's organized groups and organized crime.' Why are they suing bitorrent users then?"
Bitorrent User Group (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you realized this very dark and cloudy organized group they're referring to is the Bitorrent User Group (BUG)?
I do have another question though - Why don't consumers buying/wearing fake branded products get arrested?
A Nike t-shirt is probably as easy and cheap to copy and produce as a DVD movie. Imagine law enforcement officers roaming the streets and ripping counterfeited t-shirts off materialistic girls.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:5, Insightful)
They're (supposedly) going after the uploaders, not the downloaders. Unfortunately, when they go after sites like Suprnova, what they're doing is more like going after the yellow pages for having the phone numbers listed for businesses that sell fake branded products.
It's a pity they've got their heads up their collective asses. I'd be happy to pay for on-line content if they'd provide a reasonable service. You'd think iTunes would have taught them a lesson.
BT Users (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are they after BT users more than the crime syndicates? Because BT users are a far more high-profile target. And BT users don't have the money or clout to get themselves out of trouble. When a BT user is charged, they usually fall on their knees begging for a settlement. When (more like if) the crime syndicates are charged, money talks and suddenly the case "disappears".
It's like asking a bully why he picks on the little guys. He's afraid of messing with kids his own size.
movie revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that hollywood has made an art of hiding profits ever since they started signing profit sharing agreements with actors and directors. Sure, a crappy movie isn't going to make a good ROI. But the movie industry generally makes out quite well.
Why sue BitTorrent users? Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it is easier.
Why are they going after BT users (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Since BT users are not prone to violence they're easy targets. It's kind of like the TSA at airports, rather than doing something useful but hard, such as securing the borders or inspecting the millions of containers shipped through our ports every day, each one a potential WMD delivery system, Homeland Security has chosen to do something useless and easy, namely harass people at airports. I'm sure there's some division of the **AAs that has some metric where they are rewarded for the number of pirates they catch, regardless of whether or not those pirates are the Yakuza, Mafia or the Tongs who are making a million copies of Spiderman 2 at a pop or if they're BT users who downloaded a low resolution transfer Dr. Who episode. In large organizations it's often OK to do things that are completely worthless, so long as you look really busy while you're doing them.
Re:Why are they suing bit torrent users... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, bit torrent users are assholes. At least the ones who use it to steal movies, music and software. Don't kid yourself, bit torrent would be nothing, practically unknown and probably dead, if it weren't for all that free stuff that you'd normally have to pay for.
Because (Score:5, Insightful)
Five years ago when Napster was getting sued, everyone on Slashdot--editors included--rallied behind the idea that they should lay off the companies providing the apps and going after the individual infringers, because that was fair and logical. I think nobody expected they'd actually do that. And now they are, and so the rallying cry has changed.
Re:Why sue BitTorrent users? Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like most things in life. Play the part just enough to have people think you're doing something while really only barely skating by.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BT Users (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that if I only got my news via /., I'd be under the assumption that movie studios, law enforcement, et. al. target individual sharers exclusively and don't go after the large-scale distributors. Slashdot tends to cover the stories of suing file traders with much more regularity than they cover stories of shutting down DVD factories in China (presumably because Slashdot readers have more empathy for the former), so your confusion is understandable.
The reality is that law enforcement and copyright holders, just like you and me, can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time.
This false assumption is common in all walks of life. If you've ever wondered out loud why the cops aren't out busting the drug dealers and drug smugglers, etc. instead of writing you that ticket for failing to come to a complete stop, the answer is that law enforcement is indeed busting drug dealers and gun smugglers. They are fully capable of doing this, despite the fact that the officer happens to be writing you a ticket at that precise moment.
It's not "just like shoplifting" (Score:3, Insightful)
Bollocks. If I were to take something from a shop, then the shop can't sell it to someone else, and thus can be said to have lost not only revenue but also an asset.
If I were to copy a movie from the Net, then you might at a stretch argue that I've deprived the studio of revenue (although I still pay to go and watch movies which are good - if I download one and it sucks, I don't pay to go and see it), but I think it's pushing it to say that I've stolen an asset. It still exists, right where it was. The movie studio doesn't have anything less than they did when we started.
Revenues from movies are dropping because the studios are rarely coming out with anything original. Stop making dull sequels, or remakes of 60s TV shows, and perhaps we'll see movie revenue return - but likely not at the cinema, as the article says; people are now commonly watching movies on their home cinema system.
Interesting numbers.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollywood reported global revenue of $84 billion in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm. With most theatrical releases amounting to little more than an unprofitable, expensive form of marketing, DVD's have become Hollywood's lifeblood: together with videos, they kick in $55.6 billion, or about two-thirds of the industry's annual haul, with box-office receipts making up most of the rest.
From that paragraph, isn't it clear that accessibility ("freedom" to an extent?) is what people want. People want to be able to get access to a movie when they want to and watch it in whatever way they feel like.
The whole system is broken, because it's old and redundant. Money is spent exorbitantly in all the wrong places and, quite simply, isn't obeying simple rules of economics. You want to push your product out as much as possible at a price that people are prepared to pay.
The only saving grace is that this antiquated system is doomed. I, for one, welcome the new era of "Pro-Ams" and the demise of DRM.
Re:Because they can (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that people might be downloading movies which were in fact box office flops.
"Well, I didn't think it was going to be good enough to see in a theater, but for FREE, well..."
Exactly What Everyone Says (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone might ask "Why did you turn in the paperboy and not those two beefy guys?" and I'd be like "Err... I could've, you know, taken them, but umm... that was like my favorite CD Jimmy was touching. I mean, I've got renter's insurance anyway so I can replace my flatscreen, and my life savings was just cash anyway. I mean money would eventually rot away. But that kid was trying to take my original digital remastered recopy of Zeppelin and I just don't let anyone touch that!"
Re:Bruce Sterling had a great idea in his novel (Score:5, Insightful)
The total economy was over $18 trillion in 2002, so arts and entertainment represent about 0.7% of the total US economy in this census. I'd say the effectiveness of the tactic would be about nil.
The only smaller categories in the census were management companies (mutual funds and the like) and educational services (Princeton SAT prep, commercial trade schools like DeVry, corporate training outfits). Categories taking in over a trillion dollars include construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, finanace & insurance, and health care & social assistence. Hollywood is barely on the financial radar.
Re:Because they can (Score:3, Insightful)
Crime and Punishment, Hollywood Style (Score:3, Insightful)
In this fine New York Times article, it is revealed that Hollywood's real enemies are organized criminals who are able to spend up to a million dollars to buy DVD duplication machines in order to mass produce those pirated DVDs. Many Hollywood people, unlike the clueless RIAA crowd, know that college kids in their dorms downloading movies on BitTorrent are NOT their enemies, but there is an impatient bunch who are eager to put them in the same category as those career criminals.
Downloading movies is not the same as downloading music -- whereas somebody could download thousands of songs, but it is technically much more difficult to download "thousands" of movies. I know some college kids have time to kill, but come on, not that much time. Now let's do some calculation. Let's say some guy downloads movies illegally every day and gets caught by the "Download Police", what should his punishment be? I say he owes Hollywood no more than $17.99 a month for the duration of his "criminal downloading career", because that's how much Netflix charges per month for unlimited DVD movie rentals.
Re:Because they can (Score:2, Insightful)
Obvious answer: The movies are worth the price of the download (free) but not $9.00 at Lowe's, as you pointed out.
Answer to consider: When you level all the mountains, the molehill left standing looks that much taller.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you stop a leak in the old dam or do you wait for it to collapse and then try to build a new dam?
Re:Why are they suing bit torrent users... (Score:1, Insightful)
King Kong (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the MPAA have anyone to blame but themselves when people pirate movies they can't, in fact, buy in stores?
Disney is always doing the "this is the last time it will be available for awhile" marketting stunt to create a buying frenzy with their classic films, then try to figure out how to create sales the rest of the year, when they could just let things be steady year long.
I want to get Sin City on DVD, but the one they released has way too small a list of extras. I fully expect a "deluxe" edition to appear (like with Pulp Fiction). Result? I'm not buying anything.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think they should be suing someone better, be careful what you wish for.
China (Score:4, Insightful)
Because China has nuclear weapons and laughs in their faces.
What's your favorite crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the fraudulent bookkeeping practices used in Hollywood, it seems like studios are simply concerned about which criminal gets to pocket the profits.
Or in the immortal words from "The Princess Bride"
"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen..."
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be glad to do anything that I can to help - help the pirates, that is - if anything that I can do will help stop another $150 million lame remake of silly old movie from being made.
Who needs a $150 million remake of King Kong? Not you, not me, and certainly not anyone in the film industry.
These people get huge salaries and bonuses to be creative. Endless nonsense remakes of stupid television shows and moldy old classic movies is not being creative. Which means that they are not doing their job. Which means that they should be replaced with people who are creative.
That dark cloud over Hollywood is the choking residual fallout from $10 billion dollars wasted in the past five years on bad, boring, useless, and numbing remakes of disposable television shows and fifty-year-old 'B' movies.
C'mon, you guys are Hollywood. You are supposed to be better than this.
Re:Because (Score:2, Insightful)
Stuff like that is a good test to see if what people say they want are really what they want. Obviously what they said they wanted wasn't really what they wanted (in my defense, I said the same thing back then, and am quite happy with going after the downloaders - though I still think the whole thing is a waste of money and hurting them, that's thier right to make legal/ethical bad business decisions. And, of course, some of thier tactics still are not legal/ethical).
To note, most conservatives that are screaming "states rights" on abortion and euthenasia don't want states rights, they want them abolished. See the Schiavo case - that's what happens when it moves back into the states (while I didn't like the outcome, I want states rights and support the decision, happy to live in an area that doesn't allow it and if you are happy in one that does - great). Most gay marriage activists don't care about equal rights - abolishing marriage and creating "civil unions" does just that, yet is unacceptable. They want not only acceptance but approval (nothing wrong with that, be upfront about it. Personally could care less about the issue. Also, there are gay couples who just want the civil rights and are happy if they were to get them - they could care less if others approve or like thier lifestyle).
It's a good internal test - think about what you say you want and start making suggestions that meet it and see if they are all good. If not, then why not? I found when I started doing that that there were many areas that what I thought/said I wanted was not really what I wanted. Sometimes a buzzword (in my case, states rights) moved into ban outright, in others I really supported states rights. It was personally interesting where I shifted (it's like free speech - gotta support the KKK, Nazis, pacifist, warmongers, etc and others right to spew thier crap if you really want free speech). I suppose there are still places I do it, but I try my best not too.
Here's a thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Superbowl Counterfeit squads (Score:1, Insightful)
Look, just because you had an idea, wrote a song, made a film, painted a picture or whatever, doesn't mean anything. All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
I am so sick and tired of this uncomprehensible juvenile attitude 'I can do everything', 'I am entitled to everything': the moment you start to do illegal stuff you give up your integrity and can get caught. There you have it. Think movies are too expensive: don't go to the theatre. Don't like the music industry: don't buy records. Dont like M$: use linux. But please stop abusing the fruit of other people's creativity and complain about getting caught. BIASED news for weenies, allright.
Re:It's called the Second Amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are they suing bitorrent users then? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Inflated Losses vs. the Geek Factor (Score:2, Insightful)
And there lies the problem. At least as the Studios (tm) see it. You see, they are just a factory mass-producing a cheap and quick product, pumping out movies at an insane rate. They are aware that most of them are crap, but that people will just go to the theater for the fact of getting out of the house, or buy the DVD because it is the "Hottest New Release".
So what happens? Most people go to the theater on opening weekend, and even if they are disappointed afterwards, the *already* paid! Add to this a heavy marketing blitz and lots of hype, and you ensure that a lot of other (gullible) people will still go to the theater on subsequent weeks just to see what all the buzz is about -- regardless of reviews on opening weekend.
Now, if these people start downloading the movies off the Internet to "see what all the buzz is about" instead of coughing $8.00 to watch it at the theater (or $24.00 to buy the DVD first hand), then guess who doesn't make a profit?
Of course, the intention of a lot of these people downloading the movies, like you, is to "try before you buy", and they usually have a sincere contemplation of buying the DVD or going to the theater -- *if* the movie is good. And of course, like others have said, the true fans will pay for the experience afterwards, because they only wanted to have access to it for the geek-value -- but again, only *if* the movie is good. However, most of them are not, as we all are aware, so they end up skipping the theater run.
The Studios (tm) know this. They know that most of the films they produce are not worth the celluloid they are printed on. But they still want to rely on getting as many people as they can to *pay* up front. Pirated copy downloads and "try before you buy" methods prevent this sneaky model from succeeding.
Now, I do not condone piracy, but I strongly advocate the need to reform the entire business model of the Movie Industry.
-dZ.
More Of The Same Pro-Infringment Junk (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are distributing material that they have no right to distribute?
Re:Superbowl Counterfeit squads (Score:3, Insightful)
That kind of thinking was pretty popular in the 20th century. In fact, it still is in countries such as Cuba and China. If you dismiss the value of human effort so much, maybe you should look into moving to one of those countries.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think they should be suing someone better, be careful what you wish for."
I would assume that one would need to verify that the "shared files" are in fact pirated material (otherwise they'd be suing people who foolishly named a legitimate MP3 as something illegitimate). That being the case, are they not also pirating material during their download process?
Of course, we're talking about companies with a ton of money here. And we all know that deep pockets allow them to get away with a little more than the rest of us can.
Re:Bitorrent User Group (Score:4, Insightful)
No reason why the Yellow Pages should be sued if they accept these adverts in good faith.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
The flip side: I'm sure everyone knows someone who has a movie rental account and are doing the 'Rent, Rip and Return'. We have a huge choice of online rental sites in the UK and many people have production lines of movies which they'll probably never watch, with all the trailer crap taken out. The publishers will never allow that level of piracy to take place until they have a watertight copy protection mechanism (which will never happen).
Just make movies cheaper... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do movies and music have to be that expensive? I think the main reason for this is, that the industry is used to paying very big salaries to the people involved. Why do actors and musicians get paid millions for a single movie/record? It's just a job, just like mine. I think I even work harder than most actors
If they cut down on salaries they produce movies a lot cheaper and then also sell it cheaper.
Re:But... (Score:1, Insightful)
p2p paranoia is their loss (Score:2, Insightful)
"Organized Crime" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Superbowl Counterfeit squads (Score:2, Insightful)
With what reason, exactly? An idea does nothing and belongs to noone per se, when a person has it he can declare it as his or humanity's or whatever he fancies. Obviously that influences who he's going to explain it to. If that idea is a survival advantage that he'd like to keep for his own genes he won't share it. The idea itself does not include the concept of "belonging to humanity". The only natural law is the law of the strongest, i.e. if you harvest a banana and a thug comes by and beats you up that's now his banana. Society is a way of enforcing rules the majority saw as useful (such as "the banana belongs to the guy who harvested it").
The only way to make him share it when he doesn't want to is by means of oppression. And I'm sure you don't want an "open thought police" to go around and interrogate people if they had any worthwile ideas and incarcerate anyone for thoughtcrime when they don't share an idea.
Besides, remember, that way of thinking means that ideas like construction plans for US technology, weapons and bases would have to be publicly acessible so any terrorist or person working for hostile organizations (chinese army?) could grab the plans for US cruise missiles (nukes may be of less interest because of the materials required) off the web and build his own, grab the plans for the patriot system and fortify his base, etc. Do you think everybody should have access to potentially dangerous information?
Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)
The tech community does tend to have a lot of smart people, but smart doesn't mean 'mature', 'reasonable' or 'consistant'. Smart people can be just as dumb as everybody else.
The community is made up of lots of very young people (say, under 25) who voice their opinions loudly and frequently. Many of us with more moderate opinions just don't say much about the topic.
Re:Superbowl Counterfeit squads (Score:4, Insightful)
copyrights and patents (Score:4, Insightful)
All the fruits of all human endeavour belong to all humanity. The songs you write, the films you make, the programs you write, the inventions you invent, the clever little logos you create -- they are all ours and you can't take any of them off us. And if you don't like that, I suggest you stop having ideas.
BS! My ideas are my own, though someone else may of had similar ideas. Giving someone the right copyright or patent something for (key phrase, which I'll come back to later) a limited tyme benefits the person and society. Not everyone will work on something unless they benefit from it and with many people that means making money. Many things won't exist if the creator doesn't benefit in some way, and because most people have to eat, and many have to provide a roof over their family's heads, if they can't make money or at least try to then they won't bother with creation. Now back to the key phrase, "limited tyme". I'd like to see copyright and patent terms go back to the 14 years with a one 14 year term extension Thomas Jefferson came up with. If you can't profit on something within 28 years then you're doing something wrong or it's not much of a benefit. By having longer terms it means those who make it, ie make a lot of money or some such, doesn't need to create as much to keep the money coming in, therefore long term limits discourage the creative process which is exactly what copryrights and patents are supposed to encourage.
FalconRe:Bitorrent User Group (Score:1, Insightful)
However, if you are assuming that buying a pirated DVD and pirating a DVD is one and the same, then you are again mistaken. In a free market economy, or even in one that pretends to be as in the US, the consumer's only voice is his/her purchase.
Morality aside, media giants are not offering what their customer's want, and are suing the customer's that look elsewhere. Instead, why don't they find a way to get those customers back?
ass