Besieged Movie Industry Suffers Record Takings

nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that the movie industry, in yet another illustration of just how much damage the Internet is doing to the long-suffering members of the MPAA, has just endured a record breaking $1Billion dollar takings for the single month of June. Clearly there is a desperate need to tighten up copyright laws in the face of this huge mountain of cash that is literally being metaphorically syphoned into the studios' pockets. How will they survive? "

If they don't stop making shit movies they won't.

[garcia]

The third Harry Potter film topped the North American box office for the month by a wide margin, taking $217.2m (118m).

I have said before [slashdot.org] that if they stop making movies that suck that people will go and see them. While Harry Potter III didn't exactly make me jump up and down it was certainly better than the critically acclaimed "Gigli" or the various other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD.

I have recently seen Harry Potter 3, F 9/11, and Dodgeball in the theatres on their release weekend. I have rented over 10 DVDs in the same time period because decent movies have been released that deserved my money.

I downloaded Gigli because the MPAA needed to suck wind on that one for daring to put in the theatres and wasting both MY money and the theatre's money.

We wonder why they overcharge? It's because they have to make up for all the bullshit movies they show that suck and no one goes to. Perhaps they should try and make blockbuster months EVERY month instead of just June (6/2003 was their previous single month record according to the article). Put two good movies out every month of every year and you'll make a shitload. Put four good movies out every year and you'll suck wind for the rest.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, does this mean you thought Dodgeball was good?!?

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[DaHat]

I did... is that so bad?

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[sherms]

Maybe if they gave refunds for shitty movies, they'd change their ways.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[DaHat]

Most theatres do... although only if you leave well before the end.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Izago909]

Many theaters do refund your ticket if you leave before the end of the show. I know for a fact United Artists/Regal does.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[TopShelf]

You have to remember that most of the /. crowd are the reason dodgeball has disappeared from schools these days. They were on the receiving end of those vicious headshots, and took their revenge on the world by creating spam, computer virii, and distributing copyrighted material for free over the net...

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[TopShelf]

As I remember, we used to outlaw leg shots ("traps"), as they were too easy. If you were hit either too high or too low, you'd call "heads" or "traps", and unless there was a huge disagreement, play carried on...

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[tntguy]

Pussies. The whole point of hitting them in the legs was to watch the jocks land flat on their face as their legs fell out from under them!

/Former Catapult-Arm Nerd

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[red floyd]

Thank you, Chico Escuela.

Dodgeball - good?

[Ra5pu7in]

I would not have gone to see it, BUT my kids loved it (and I am absolutely the parent of Gen-Y kids). Tastes vary considerably. I didn't care for most of the movie, though I liked the minor characters they pulled in such as William Shater and Lance Armstrong. Then again, I watch very few "comedy" movies because I find the humor too blatant and without taste. I prefer action and drama -- movies about people and things happening. I happened to enjoy Hidalgo, which I know wouldn't appeal to everyone. I t

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Maradine]

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

Sometimes they swing and miss.

No you don't understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

They sit around their boardroom trying to create recycled star vehicles with no soul because they think it will bring them safe revenue, rather than try to make something original.

Re:No you don't understand.

[MindStalker]

But whats truly sad, is that it works.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[garcia]

Sometimes they swing and miss.

SOMETIMES? You're fucking kidding me right? MONTHS at a time go by that I don't see a single movie that appeals to me. It's obvious that it isn't just me either as we see fantastic movies like The Butterfly Effect [imdb.com] and Along Came Polly [imdb.com].

Those are obviously just "mistakes" right? Casts that include Ashton Kutcher as the star? Come on.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[swdunlop]

The highly groomed, preened and prepped young teen markets, of course. Oversaturated with hype from Viacom's twin dumping spouts -- Nickelodeon and MTV. Our poor kids get fed a tremendous amount of tie-in movie hype from these two, alone, let alone Disney's all-advertising, all-the-time channel.

The only youth oriented channel on US Cable that doesn't steadily pump our kids full of marketing hype is Cartoon Network, and that's probably just a matter of time.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[afidel]

Hmm, Butterfly Effect gets a 7.4/10.0 at imdb, not what I would call a horrible movie by any stretch. Along Came Polly garnered a 5.7/10.0, considering that imdb's audience is pretty highly squewed towards the male half of the species that's not too bad. Btw the production cost of Butterfly Effect was only $13 million its US box office reciepts were $58 million, quite a handsome profit. Along Came Polly grossed $88 million on a budget of $42 million. If you wanted to quote stinkers or flops there are plenty of examples out there but neither of the films you listed were good ones.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[lickalotapus]

No, but some top executive did sit in a room, read the script to Hidalgo, and think it was a tremendous idea worth financing for millions of dollars. That movie made me want to kill horses and I'm no horse killer.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[genkael]

Oh, come now. You must admit that Hidalgo was the best Swedish actor playing a western cowboy racing through the Arabian Desert movie you've ever seen.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Dr Caleb]

. . . the best Swedish actor playing a western cowboy racing through the Arabian Desert movie you've ever seen. . .

. . .since 'Ishtar'. . .

Viggo Mortensen isn't Swedish.

[warrax_666]

He's Danish.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[NanoGator]

"I'm guessing movie studio executives don't get together around the boardroom table and have conversations like, "gentlemen, our fare has been too highly reviewed of late. It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books. Instant flop."

Perhaps not, but I am guessing that they have said "ah screw it, the licensed character is all we need, write a script over the weekend."

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[TommydCat]

Sad truth to the industry is that a good 75% of movies made are because of the "buzz" that surrounds the script and writer rather than anyone actually having read it or met the person.

And yes, I made that number up!

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[duffhuff]

It's time to make a real stinker. One for the record books.

While only a TV movie, 10.5, the show about a large earthquake hitting the US, was reportedly made because it was so bad that people would *want* to watch more reality TV after seeing it.

"I, Robot".

[Grendel Drago]

I bet they have discussions like this...

Exec 1: Here we have a script in which malevolent robots run amok, and stylish humans with big guns save the world by shooting them.
Exec 2: Hmm. How can we make it more marketable? What's a good name in robots?
Exec 1: Well, Isaac Asimov looked at the current robot-story market of his day, and found it flooded with tales in which malevolent robots run amok, and stylish humans with big guns save the world by shooting them. He created the Three Laws to prevent himself from repeating this cliche, and created some of the most beloved SF stories of the era, collected in the omnibus "I, Robot".
Exec 2: Catchy! We should use the name, draw in his fans.
Exec 1: Should we change the plot to reflect his creative influence in any way whatsoever?
Exec 2: Nah, too much work. just rename the eye-candy babe to "Susan Calvin".
Exec 1: I can taste the box-office receipts already.

Can you think of a better reason why they did it?!

--grendel drago

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you admitted publicly to downloading Gigli! I would never tarnish the pristine surface of my hard drive platter with that piece of shite ;)

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[GreyPoopon]

I would never tarnish the pristine surface of my hard drive platter with that piece of shite ;)

Maybe he downloaded it onto an old hard drive that was failing and then promptly threw it into the trash? :-)

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[glitch!]

Maybe he downloaded it onto an old hard drive that was failing and then promptly threw it into the trash? :-)

That's an excellent point! It must be part of his disk wiping procedure. I guess it now goes something like, "zeros, alternating, ones, alternating, Gigli..."

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[iceT]

I downloaded Gigli

Wait... someone took the time to rip Gigli AND POST it somewhere?

What a waste of bandwidth (both personal and network).

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[AKAImBatman]

Believe it or not, the popularity of DVDs is probably contributing to movies improving. It used to be that they could release a stinky movie with a "catch" (e.g. Jennifer Lopez, The Hulk, etc.), and they could be guaranteed an amazing opening week. The fact that no one really wanted to see the movie again was small potatoes. The cost of improving the movie would be more expensive than it was worth.

Cue DVDs in 2004. Suddenly, the studio execs realize that 52% of their profits are now coming from people who've seen the movie, but want a permanent or "collector's" copy. Studios thus decide that they need to create really good movies so they can sell you the DVDs 3 times over. (Original, Special Edition, and Collector's Edition. Of course, I'm still waiting for the collectors edition of Nemesis with the extra hour of footage. Hello?! Are B&B listening?! Wait, what am I saying...)

BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing. They actually took a halfway decent approach to piracy with their (admittedly lame) commercials. They've actually been claiming that more blame belongs to the "cell-phone users" who IM their friends that a movie sucks.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[Alsee]

BTW, when did we confuse the MPAA with the RIAA? Last I knew, the MPAA's biggest crime was the whole DeCSS thing.

You need to pay more attention to their congression testimony and other legislative antics. Everything from incessant Boston-Strangler style ranting to attempting to push through the SSSCA/CBDTPA which would outlaw ordinary computers to playing the FCC like a puppet and getting the Broadcast Flag mandated (outlawing non-crippled non-crippled TV tuners as of one year from this month). Oh, and don't forget pushing for the various state SuperDMCA laws.

Hell, that list is just off the top of my head.

Not that getting the DMCA passed and the crippled DVD player/DeCSS thing wasn't bad enough in the first place.

No, the MPAA is no better than the RIAA.

-

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[ScrewMaster]

Better re-read your industry group history. The MPAA (and it's politically-very-well-connected) head, Jack Valenti) was heavily involved in the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the DMCA, to name a few of their more egregious crimes against the nation. So, no, while they have avoided most of the RIAA's PR gaffes they are by no means blameless or any less dangerous than their sister organization.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[MenTaLguY]

90% of everything is crap.

Also, crap is relative.

If you don't like a movie, you steal it?

[Matt Ownby]

If you like it, you pay for it, if you don't like it, you steal it?

The MPAA is accusing people of stealing their movies. We _don't_ want to prove them right. That only gives them leverage to take our freedoms away with absurd legislation like the DMCA!

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[pgnas]

Are you Kidding me?

There is absolutely No justification for stealing, regardless of the quality of the product. I am certainly not siding with the MPAA or any of their affiliates, the movie industry is just a big fat cash machine. Who didn't know that?

Is the problem with the MPAA? I don't know about that, if we(consumers) were simply not willing to pay $9 a ticket to see a movie, they would have to lower prices, however, they keep charging and we keep coming.simple econmics, and don't come back with that crap that volume(more people will come if you lower prices) speaks louder, becasue that is clearly not always the case and may not be as profitable.

What you need to do is take a look at the entire system, everyone gets a piece of the action and they demand very large pieces. Actors and Actresses command huge paychecks, agents, publicists, movie crews, designers, the list goes on..they all have to maintain that hollywood lifestyle.

There is a positive light though, if a movie costs $50 Million, you pay a mere $10 dollars to see it, that really is amazing to think that someone shelled out that kind of cash just to entertain you/us.

Either way, there is no justification for theft, furthermore, while I did not even remotely consider seeing Gigli, I am sure that there are movies out there that you would deem garbage,and I may enjoy so, lets not change the whole process just to fit your tastes? What the hell is that, I might not care for Harry Potter, I wouldn't drop a dime to see Michael Moore propoganda and dodgeball is just another cookie cutter money maker for Ben Stiller, would you put this on your "Blockbuster" List?

Watch the movies, or don't, but please stop crying about it, rent a classic, read a book, take a walk, there are other options... Hollywood will roll with the punches and continue to make huge money.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[delphin42]

There is absolutely No justification for stealing, regardless of the quality of the product...Either way, there is no justification for theft

I agree 100%, but you cannot equate downloading a movie off of the internet with theft. Simply denying a corporation of profits that it might otherwise have earned is not theft. If it were, then any money conserving strategy could be construed as theft (ie inviting all your friends over and pay-per-viewing a movie or event, waiting for a movie to transition to the discount cinema or dvd, borrowing books from the library rather than purchasing them, taping songs off the radio instead of buying albums, drinking at home rather than paying $6 a drink at a restaurant or bar).

Are those examples all theft? If not, what is the difference between these actions and downloading a movie that makes one theft and the other not? Hint: what was stolen and who was it stolen from?

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[tekunokurato]

I agree. I sat and thought a while ago and decided that if The Matrix can be made for a $63mm production budget, ANY movie ought to be able to be made for the same amount (inflation adjusted), and my friends in the biz agree. If the studios would adhere to this philosophy and challenge directors, the losses on flops would shrink drastically (think The Alamo) and the gains on blockbusters would be magnified, often to the point of an extra 100%.

The interesting hole in this theory is as follows:

Investors or execs will literally say to producers "we've got $500mm in production costs we need to use this year, so put it to use however you have to." None of the studios throw much cash back to shareholders except (sort of) the ones owned by GE; instead, they're just told to reinvest it, and execs feel they might as well throw it at making movies that much flashier rather than let it sit around.

Re:If they don't stop making shit movies they won'

[garcia]

...it was certainly better than the critically acclaimed "Gigli" or the various other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD.

Do you understand what sarcasm is? See, me saying "critically acclaimed", "Gigli", "and other fantastic movies that go straight to DVD" was supposed to clue you in to the HUMOR.

For those that didn't read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some infomration to put that figure into perspective:

The box office tally for June 2004 is 37% higher than the same period in 2001.

Re:For those that didn't read the article

[PugMajere]

So, apparently rampant movie downloading helps theater ticket sales.

Good to know.

Michael Moore

[TheMeddler]

From the Sunday Herald (link at end of article):

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge. The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.

"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.

Sunday Herald [sundayherald.com]

Re:For those that didn't read the article

[swillden]

The box office tally for June 2004 is 37% higher than the same period in 2001.

Valenti's Response: Well, that would be good if we hadn't had 15% annual inflation over the last three years! We've lost money!

(An aide quickly whispers in his ear)

Valenti: Oh, uh, sorry, I've just been informed that the price of cocaine isn't a good measure of the economy as a whole. We'll get back to you on why only 37% growth isn't nearly enough to feed all of the starving actors and directors. But it's not, and it's all because of those stinking pirates.

Re:For those that didn't read the article

[e40]

I just saw Spider Man 2 the other day. $10. Wow. That's the first time I paid that much (SF Bay Area). That's about $2 more than I paid last time (I don't see a lot of movies). Perhaps this is why revenue is up, they're charging more?

Re:For those that didn't read the article

[sfjoe]

You don't understand capitalism. There is no such thing as "enough". Whatever profit you make in any given year must be bested the next year or you are a failure.

I'm really curious...

[Scottarius]

...where they get these "statistics" from. I mean do they know for a fact how many movies were downloaded? And do they know for a fact that for every movie downloaded means they lost money for that? I'm sure some people download movies they wouldn't have spent money on anyway.

I downloaded The Return of the King before it came out on DVD. But I also saw the movie in the theater opening day and three other times after that, plus bought the DVD the day it came out, plus I will buy the Extended Edition DVD the day it comes out as well. But I bet their statistics say they lost money from me downloading it when in fact they have gotten more money from me than the average-joe movie goer who doesn't even know how to click a mouse.

It's just a bunch of bullshit to make the uninformed brainwashed public that laughs at every idiotic joke in their movies believe this is all worse than it really is. The MPAA just needs to jump on the boat like the RIAA finally did and offer a good service for a decent price over the internet. Ever since Rhapsody came out I've stopped downloading mp3's and haven't even listened to the 10 gigs of them sitting on my hard drive.

But I guess leeching more money from hard working individuals is a better alternative than actually finding a solution to the problem.

It makes me want to ask...

[Torinaga-Sama]

...how do they sleep at night?

The answer however is to easy to come up with.

Very comfortably, on a big pile of money.

Re:It makes me want to ask...

[mst76]

> Very comfortably, on a big pile of money.

I've tried this once. It was not quite as comfortable as you imagine.

Let me get this straight...

[eberry]

If you release movies that people WANT to see (Harry Potter, Spiderman, Shrek); than people will pay to see a movie? No F***ING WAY! What a concept.

Someone should report this new marking strategy of producing a quality product to the RIAA; maybe they can learn something.

Sounds painful

[Vinnie_333]

Boy, it must really hurt to have that much money coming out of their a$$holes!

Grammar Nazism...

[Anonymous Coward]

"literally being metaphorically syphoned"

What the heck does that even mean???

Re:Grammar Nazism...

[wfberg]

The article writer was almost exactly paraphrasing verbatim.

Following their usual logic...

[GillBates0]

based on the sample space of 1 month, we can infer that "illegal downloads" by pirrates are actually increasing their profit margin.

I suggest *AA start paying pirates for downloads for the excellent job they're doing.

Arrr

DVDs

[bigman2003]

The big story in the media last week, was that DVDs actually supply over 50% of the movie industry income.

The average american home purchase ~15 DVDs per year.

That's huge- and it is ON TOP of record-setting box office receipts. They make a lot of money from them. [duluthsuperior.com]

But somehow, they still manage to claim that they are bleeding money out the ass. [bloomberg.com]

I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.

The Onion provides a suitable article...

[tcopeland]

...sadly the full text is for subscribers only (and I'm not one), so the opening words will have to be sufficient:

Kid Rock Starves To Death

LOS ANGELES-MP3 piracy of copyrighted music claimed another victim Monday, when the emaciated body of rock-rap superstar Kid Rock was found on the median of La Cienega Boulevard.

More here [theonion.com].

but it could have been 2 billion

[Revek]

Hey there will never be enough profit for most people. As the profits go up the need for higher profits will push them to make more and more claims against their customers. I haven't been to see a movie at a movie theater in 10 years. I wait for it to come out in the retail market and pay more than If I had just bought a ticket. I have it to watch anytime I like Which is usually once or twice. I have looked at camcorder rips of recent movies and all I can say is that I will wait until its out as a DVD. After all its new to me when it does I just run a few months behind everybody else.

Movies are worth it...

[Psymunn]

But there's that commercial with the guy whose the stuntman and... and... he goes through all that work and you can watch his movie with just a single click... and... P2P rapes 3rd world children...
I hate all these people trying to guilt trip me into thinking I'm a criminal because I download movies, even though I pay to see them in theatre, buy them if I think they are excellent, and then they turn around and make more money then i will ever see off of something like chronicles of riddik. I think for every Van Helsing (arguably the worst movie EVER) a person watches, they should be entitled to download 2 movies.
Not many people have watched teh Clerks cartoon, but it's worth it jsut for the scene where Randall brings every shitty movie director into court and demands, under oath, that they admit that 'star wars 1 sucked' or something to that effect.

Re:Movies are worth it...

[thebra]

But there's that commercial with the guy whose the stuntman and... and... he goes through all that work and you can watch his movie with just a single click

Thats the one that makes me mad. I mean I've paid for my ticket and I have to hear about how I shouldn't download movies, but I've already paid for a ticket? Do they not understand that if I'm in the theater I've paid them and that there are never promos on pirated movies? Jerks...

not an excuse

[TheAdventurer]

I should point out that a healthy industry is not an excuse for stealing intellectual property. Cop: "You're under arrest for stealing TV's from Sears!" Crook: "What? But Sears posted a 13% profit increase in the 3rd quarter! They can afford this!" That doesn't work.

shameless plagarism

[Psymunn]

"I should point out that a healthy industry is not an excuse for stealing intellectual property. Cop: "You're under arrest for stealing TV's from Sears!" Crook: "What? But Sears posted a 13% profit increase in the 3rd quarter! They can afford this!" That doesn't work." - Psymunn

See what i just did?!? I stole your intellectual property. I took credit for something you said. But wait.. I can't help but notice, affexed to my own post, your quote is still there, glaringly obvious for all to see...
Surely if I stole it, it must be gone. Mayhaps a diffrent crime has taken place, but theft it can not be...
I thinkt he problem people have is not that there is health of the industry, therefore I can steal but the possiblity (though this has never been proven) that P2P actually helps the movie industry. After all, thanks to me, your words got approximatly twice as much viewage (my taking credit for them however was morally bankrupt, that i must admit). Years ago people where declaring that VCRs would be the death of the movie theatre business. But, what people don't realise is, I do not have a 3 story high screen in my basment and, some movies, really are meant to be seen on a BFS (big friendly screen). I think (with music, and movies) P2P allows people to sample things a lot more and, with a bit of luck, will ultimatly mean the death of one-hit-wonders.
Granted, illegally copying copyrighted material is still illegal, but all that clamping down on this apparant scourge on society is giong to do is, hopefully, help the indie guys who aren't making much money and just want to have their stuff seen.

Re:shameless plagarism

[TrekkieGod]

You have taken my meaning out of context and used as fuel for an invalid argument based on the semantics of the word "stealing"

Err...he used sarcasm to point out that your use of the word "stealing" is wrong. Just because two things are illegal, it doesn't mean there's no difference between two crimes. Let me see how you like it if I do it. "Look...he took money from that bank. He's loitering!" He tried to explain to you that what he did with your quote was plagiarizing it, not stealing it. You can't steal quotes, you can't steal movies (unless you rob a store and take the dvd).

Stealing something and copying a copyrighted material are two completely different crimes. Just because it's done with movies via the net instead of with books via xerox machines doesn't give you the right to give it a new term.

...to support an out of date and largely ignored point of view that getting things for free helps commerce.

Out of date and largely ignored? You don't get free samples of food at the supermarkets you shop? You don't get aol cd's giving you 1000 free hours (or however many they're giving these days. Free samples are EVERYWHERE. You must hook the customer so he can start buying your stuff. I just got a free 12-month subscription of sports illustrated. Really, this isn't a hypothetical example, I did. I would never buy sports illustrated, but it's free, and it's here at the house, so I read it. Maybe in 12 months I'll start to like it, who knows?

It would have been more productive if you had decided to infer the meaning from my post that I clearly meant to convey.

When arguing, you can do two things. You can show someone where they are wrong, and you can, (pay attention, this is important), show them a different point of view. He showed a different point of view and I think it was an effective enough argument.

But since I'm right about the situation

That's great. I'm going to claim that I'm right now, ok? Will that settle the discussion, and will you accept my side? Don't reply again saying that you're right, that's just going to cause me to have to reply once more to say that I'm right, and...damn, this is messing with my head, where will it stop???

you wouldn't really do that because disagreeing with the fact that breaking intellectual property laws is healthy for commerce would require you to be illogical and therefore irrelavent.

Now you're getting it. Sometimes the breaking of these intellectual property laws IS healthy for the commerce, you're right. Seriously though, it serves as a free sample, which causes the person to decide that the movie they thought was going to be horrible is actually worth seeing it in the theatre, where the quality doesn't freaking suck. Like others pointed out, it also helps to increase the quality of the movies in hollywood, because people stop paying for bad movies, since they know it's bad ahead of time. It keeps the pressure on for the movie industry to do some quality control on their stuff.

Perfect quality videos would be a bit worse, although not by much. There's still the "This is a great, I want to see it in the big screen" factor, as well as the whole atmosphere of a movie theatre. DVD's offer stuff that's not pirated like special features, and the nice little case. I own 220+ dvd's (it's been a while since I counted), and I'm a college student. Imagine how many I would have if I had more funds. I've also downloaded movies, but I can honestly say that not a single movie I downloaded and liked has not been bought or is not on the list of my monthly movie to buy. Heck, it hasn't even stopped me from renting, much less going to the theatre or buying.

Here's how it is. Try and argue these points:

Does piracy hurt? It depends, it can. Does piracy help? It depends, it can. Should piracy be illegal? It already is, why are you complaining? Should piracy be treated as th

huh?

[Quirk]

" literally being metaphorically syphoned..."

let's see if it's being literally syphoned then it's not metaphoric but if it's metaphorically being syphoned it can't be literally syphoned... it must have to do with the heavy sarcasm quotient.

just like gubment.....

[RegalBegal]

It's scare tactics.

They want to scare people before there is actually a full on problem for them. MPAA is no better or worse than any lobbying group.

AND just like the RIAA, they won't admit to having a rotten egg if something isn't selling right. It must be downloading that got Gigli canned. Fuck them, and fuck their money system. Unless of course it's Spiderman 2.

The internet is to blame, not because of downloading. It's to blme because I can log onto Trillian and tell 20 of my friends the movie I just shelled out 9 bucks to see, sucked and they shouldn't see it.

Thier tactics aren't working.

They caught ONE kid in the theatre shooting the movie with a cam. How many kids sneak cams into movies? In just new york?! They "caught" less than a couple thousand people with HUGE caches of music shared. How many people are doing the same NOT getting caught.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The mainstream media plays us for fools, whether it's music, movies, or our own gubment. I ain't eatin' the cheese, I hate yellow.

_g

Downloading movies: Still Illegal!

[Anubis333]

We can say whatever we want. It doesn't matter how much money they are sucking into their gullets -copyright infringement is still against the law. A lot of people ignore this 'if the industry is making a profit, that means I'm not hurting anything, which means it must be legal.' -OR- 'Sure I downloaded all the Lord of the Rings on BT, but I saw it a BILLION times in the theater!'

no.

You should fight to repeal laws you feel are unjust.
Do not just surreptitiously break them because you don't agree with them.

Kill MPAA, RIAA the right way

[manabadman]

I don't think the MPAA's profits make it right or wrong to download movies over the internet.

It would me feel better to know that the entity I am stealing from isn't going to be destroyed by my theft, but it still doesn't make it right.

I really,really hate the RIAA, MPAA, and Fraunhofer (mp3 people), but I make my stance by boycotting their products (I try my best in any case) and by telling people the things I find wrong with these organizations. And if you are going to pirate, when in public don't just point out that they have lotsa money anyway, but give your other reasons (inflated prices, price fixing, artist exploitation, etc). I really want things to change. Having illegal foundation arguments hinders, not helps.

Greets to RBK, VOD, RAC, JAH, APC, RNS, TMD et al !

Re:Kill MPAA, RIAA the right way

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I don't think the MPAA's profits make it right or wrong

Maybe it does. Copyright isn't just a right given to people for their pleasure. Let me quote a well known document

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;

So we have to ask - does a 'loss' of earnings from 'piracy' hinder this Progress. If it does not, then one has to start questioning if it is wrong. This is quite di

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Mastadex]

Reinier Wolfcastle: Its me standing infront of a brick wall of three hours. It cost eighty milion dollars.

Jay Sherman: [To Reinier Wolfcastle] How do you sleep at night??

Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.

Jay: Yeash, Just asking.

Our boycott ...

[fayd]

is really working out for us, they're really on the ropes now.

Meanwhile, back in the music industry

[Thagg]

The LA Times has an interesting story today (registration required, sorry) [latimes.com] about the Mexican music industry. It is in the process of being destroyed by piracy. I think that the movie industry is about five years behind the music industry in terms of the impact of downloading, mostly because the file size is so much higher. It will happen, though. Note well that that Harry Potter film that they are talking about cost about $120 million to make, as opposed to a record which might cost about $1 million. That money has to be recovered or the movie will not be made. Movies will, of course, continue to be made when piracy becomes rampant, but they will be dramatically different. They will be far cheaper, and will be filled with product placement. Hopefully, I'll be retired by that point. thad

Re:Meanwhile, back in the music industry

[Hans Lehmann]

The LA Times has an interesting story today about the Mexican music industry. It is in the process of being destroyed by piracy.

Please note that it's the Mexican music *Industry* that's being hurt. The music continues to be played & recorded, and people are still listening to it. The ones that are being hurt are the middle-men that try to price CDs at the equivelant of $15-$20 U.S., in a country where there average daily wage is about $4. And they wonder why their business model isn't working??

i never understood why the mpaa feared downloading

[circletimessquare]

people go to movies for the same reason people go to church: it's a community thing

no, really, it's sociological and psychological

the sea of humans around you is a major reason people go to movies, it's not just for the big screen and the great audio

movie is culture, and you partake of your culture and announce your allegiance to your culture by going to movie houses... movies are our shared cultural experiences, the thread of common experience which makes us who we are, and to be certain that everyone around you knows who the tinman in the wizard of oz is, or the shark in jaws, or who neo is and what the matrix is... this is no small thing, it is an important part of knowing who you are and what community you belong to

human beings are pack animals, and we do things in groups, for better or for worse, because we all have a need to belong, and we derive pleasure from feeling part of a group

if the mpaa is threatened by downloading, then they haven't been studying their history: the vcr didn't kill them, television didn't kill them (that was one of the reasons why the widescreen format was born in the 1950s: movies wanted to make sure their content couldn't be put on tv easily, but it was still unnecessary... televangelists didn't kill churches, and television didn't kill moviehouses)

now, the riaa is another story, as most people enjoy music in solitude

and books are another story too: wood pulp has a higher screen contrast, versatility, durability, and battery usage than any laptop could hope to achieve

so movies and books need not fear p2p

but music? p2p is going to eat the music industry alive

it's all amout the medium, how it is stored and used, and movies have nothing to fear from p2p if they truly understand their own business and its relation to american culture, to world culture, and sociology

watching a lossy version of a movie that took me 20 hours to download on my 17 inch monitor will never replace sitting in the cathedral of the modern cinema, happily munching away on popcorn in a sea of my fellow human beings around me, laughing at the same jokes, gasping at the same tragedies

it's part of the moviegoing experience you can never recreate at home

Re:i never understood why the mpaa feared download

[cmpalmer]

If the MPAA wants to keep my butt in a theater seat, they need to employ the guys with night vision scopes and listening devices to kick out the obnoxious patrons who talk, kick seats, throw things, and talk on their cell phones during a movie that I paid $50 (family + concession stand) to see.

I used to work at a theater and we had a manager with a real knack for remembering faces. If he ever kicked you out of a movie (and he did so frequently), he would go get you out of line a month later and tell you that you still weren't welcome in his theater. Yes, he was a jerk, but he wouldn't let some punk ruin a movie for everyone.

I really like going to a theater and I love seeing movies with crowds that appreciate a film (cheering and laughing), but with the prices, I should just stay home and buy the DVD -- it's cheaper, my HDTV and surround sound are great, I don't have any guilt over stealing, etc.

Minor Spiderman 2 spoilers ahead:

I went to see Spidey 2 again last night with my wife since she was out of town when I saw it the first time. The guy behind me spent the whole movie doing the Commentary for the Mentally Disabled. Some scenes and quotes:

Peter's vision goes bad.
"He can't see without his glasses. He must be losing his powers."

Peter's vision gets better.
"He can't see with them glasses on no more."

The wedding.
"She stood him up. He ain't happy 'bout that!"

and so on...

Re:i never understood why the mpaa feared download

[smithmc]

the sea of humans around you is a major reason people go to movies

Um, actually, that "sea of humans" is a big part of the reason I don't go to movies anymore. Humans are OK, I guess, but not in groups of more than 10 or so.

Well this OBVIOUSLY prooves their point...

[TheTXLibra]

For you see, the poor movie industries only broke $1 Billion instead of $5 Billion. Obviously their profits were cut by 80% thanks to the evil Dr. Kazaa. Can't you see how they are now suffering? How our poor stars are only able to be afforded salaries in the lower nine digits? How the producers are barely able to make the payments on their own personal third-world countries, I will never know. This is an abomination that cannot be tolerated any longer.

Why, even when they offer us the ridiculously low subsidy rate of a mere $25 per DVD, do those villanous pirates continue to destroy this sacred and nearly-profitless art? Why, when the movies are so kind as to offer us amazingly low discount prices on drinks, snacks, and tickets, do they feel the need to steal the very food from the mouths of babies dependent on those ticket-sales. Babies who will never see their own space-shuttle for their 5th birthday, but will have to wait until they are 6!!! SIX, I say!!!!

The inhumanity of man towards man has indeed reached it's highest point, and I ask that we all bow our heads and weep for the loss of the Movie Industry, for it is they who suffer the most for our shortcomings as mere human beings.

Amen.

FWIW: wrong index

[mblase]

Counting the number of dollars made is pointless, because (1) inflation isn't taken into account and (2) blockbusters cost more and more to make every year, mainly as a consequence of (1).

Even adjusting for inflation is a tricky business, though. The more important thing to consider, if you're the MPAA, is the number of tickets sold The number of people paying for movie tickets, regardless of how much they paid, gives you a clear idea of whether the movie industry is losing customers to the Internet or not.

Fortunately, the numbers still support the "not" conclusion. A review of yearly movie ticket sales [boxofficemojo.com] shows that while ticket sales haven't increased every year for the past two decades, overall they've continued to climb -- even through the 80s when cable television was becoming massively widespread.

Unfortunate dilemna

[X86Daddy]

I'd like to say that I will be boycotting them, and not supporting their industry. But looking at the top 100 films in the past 2 years, I've seen all but two. So whether or not we like their business, we do like their product.

I declared Kanli on the RIAA a while back, and I feel good about it. I stopped buying CDs except directly from small-time artists and used CD stores, and I try to convince others to do the same. Easy enough boycott. The one thing they want to sell is either crap, or easily obtained in a more convenient format for zero cost and zero hassle, at their detriment.

The movie / TV industry, however, is a much harder beast to fight.

• They sometimes produce a quality product
  
• They provide more than a media product; they provide an entertaining service (big screen, see it before hearing inevitable spoilers, something fun to do with friends)
  
• DVDs are often exactly what I want... I want the deleted scenes, the cute boxed set, the sense of getting a good value
  

It's so much easier to boycott and declare war on the music industry... they don't offer what we want for a reasonable price. The movie and TV industries are just as evil when it comes to lobbying against the public in the copyright law arena, and screwing up the tech with DRM, region codes, etc.., but they provide something most of us are still willing to pay for.

I've rambled about the problem... I wish I had a solution. (and even if I could be convinced to stop giving them $$, most people don't have the same hatred for the above practices as I do, and won't be swayed)

The lost war of RIAA/MPAA

[N3wsByt3]

The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.

First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?

It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairshar e).

And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.

And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).

It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.

But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.

It's not the money, it's the number of entries

[lothar97]

One thing that amazes me about the American box office numbers is that it is always about the amount of money, and not the number of people who viewed the movie. With inflation, increased ticket prices, matinees that end by 1pm, etc, it's the nature of the beast to have progressively better box office tallies. While "Star Wars" (including before the re-issue) had a huge take, it is smaller compared to "Titanic," although I suspect many more individuals saw Luke as opposed to Leo. Top Box Office [imdb.com]

I know some countries like France do both (entries and box office take), which gives you a more accurate picture of how many people are seeing movies. Sure, it doesn't sound as sexy as "Biggest grossing weekend ever," but I'd give more credance to the title "Most viewed movie ever."

Movies and theatres are the suck

[demo9orgon]

Maybe I'm getting old and pissed off, but since I went to see "Return of the King" with the family I haven't bothered stepping foot into a movie theatre.

There's nothing which will draw me back there of my own free will. To be considered a criminal, to sit in a theatre seat and be watched in order to protect someone's interest over watching a movie.
A movie.
A movie isn't so precious that I have to be a criminal to watch it.

I'll wait for the DVD and enjoy it in private.
Since I play computer games and program all the damn time, it's not as if I'm starved for something to do.

I'd pay good money to sit in a theatre and see a thousand miles of film knotted up and ran through the guts and butts of a hundred lawyers and MPAA executives for all the excretions of their efforts. It's the least they could do to atone for the suffering and comminseration they're putting people through.
It would be a bonus if the lovely ladies of "Women of Sodom" would officiate the show.
(Cue the "priceless" commercial spot)

Downloaders Creedo

[StarWreck]

Becuase of the actions of the RIAA, a sort of "Downloaders Creedo" has been developed. Since the actions by the MPAA are slightly less offensive, they will prosper under the Downloaders Creedo.

Music:
1. Don't buy ANY RIAA music, EVER! (riaaradar.com)
2. Download all RIAA Music for FREEEEEEEEE!
3. Pay for any non-RIAA music

Movies:
1. Download all movies for FREEEEEEE!
2. If you like the download, buy the movie.
(You'll find yourself buying even more movies than you would had downloading never been invented).

Laws of success distribution.

[Kjella]

Success is always due to the company, preferably management. Blame is always due to someone else, preferably some external cause beyond management's control. If all else fails, blame the workers (which is less perferable since you should be, um, managing them).

Hence, any increase in sales is due to management's persistant and dilligent defense of their intellectual property rights. Any decrease is due to massive piracy, the global economy etc. Plan B, should that ever fail, would be to blame oversized costs for superstars, CGI effects etc. making them "unable" to deliver great movies.

Plan C is to retire early with a suitcases full of cash and a plane to Tahiti. Plan D, right after hell freezes over, is to admit that the management and/or business plan has been less than stellar.

Kjella

The real question is -

[t_allardyce]

How much longer before hollywood totally runs out of ideas? At the moment they're getting an average of about 0.2 original ideas per year from the mainstream industry but experts are predicting that the worlds supply of film ideas could run out as soon as 2006. Remakes have helped stretch the supply but already an IP crisis is looming. Movie studios however are confident that they have the reserves to meet consumer demand for the time being: they're using sequals, prequals, adaptations, book-to-films, comic-to-films, even old saturday morning cartoon-to-films to keep supply levels up. Recent writing-pool technology has even allowed combinations of comic-to-films and sequels as seen by Spiderman 2 and ofcourse the less environmentally friendly 'trillogy' which generally closes the door to additional sequals later on. Some say we already reached the point of no-ideas between 2000 and 2003 with the releases of Scooby-Do and Scary Movie 3 but others are more optimistic, suggesting that we can recylce remakes in another 20 years - remaking The Italian Job or Titanic for example could go on indefinately.

I hate going to the movies

[geek]

I prefer cold toilet seats and dentist chairs. I do however make the trek out for special events, like Matrix movies, Star Wars and Harry Potter flicks.

I don't see the appeal anymore. You're locked into a cold room with uncomfortable chairs that don't recline, kids behind you kicking your chair, yelling etc. Some fat lady with 2 huge tubs of popcorn talking at full volume on her cell phone. I went to see LotR: The Two Towers last year and a full on fight broke out in the seats behind me.

I have a 65" HDTV in my living room with 5.1 surround sound. I'd rather spend 20$ or less on a nice DVD with good reviews 5-6 months after it's theatre debut than spend 40-50$ at the theatre. Until they can tempt me into coming back I won't go. This would be the same if all I had was a little 20" TV in my bedroom and played DVD's on my xbox. It's still better than sticky floors, seats with missing arm rests, rude people and over priced sweet tarts. I can make popcorn for 30 cents at home, I don't need to pay 3.50$ at the threatre.

Does...not...compute

[isomeme]

literally being metaphorically syphoned

I feel like I should do a Jessica Simpson-style doubletake. "Um, is it literal...or...metaphorical?"

Attendance is down

[forii]

The rise in revenue is due solely to increased ticket prices, not because more people are seeing movies. In fact, movie attendance has dropped in three of the last five years. [cnn.com] The fact is, there will always be a market for movies, as few non-slashdotters consider watching a bootlegged movie on your computer to be a "good date", but tickets will instead become even more expensive.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

literally metaphorically?

[fa098h23fra]

How is something both literal and methaphorical? Is that like spiderman being both a literal spider and a metaphor for, uhh, the decline of western civilization?

Must Be Nice...

[severed]

Wow, that's a whole lot of money those guys are making. I guess it really does pay to sue everyone, and buy off lawmakers to pass a whole bunch of insane laws, and basically be a dick.

Meanwhile, I'm a small independent movie producer, I don't back the MPAA, region encoding, or CSS. I am even a big supporter of fair use [insecure.org]... and I can't even get a booth at a hacker convention. But don't worry, the guys who advocate downloading my film over buying a copy got a space...

Don't get me wrong, on my website we pretty much encourage people to download our film, because the way things are going, we don't have any other means of distributing it. But I love how everything is about the P2P networks versus the Hollywood Big Boys. You know, there are still independent movie producers out there... we just don't get any attention from anyone. I guess the only way you get noticed anymore is if you make a big scandal about how Disney won't distribute your flick...

I think I'll go see if the MPAA is hiring...

DVD's are a better deal any way...

[9Nails]

If I take my family to the movies, it's $5.50 x 2, plus $6.50 x 2 = $24.00 to see one movie. (Child and Adult matinee prices locally.) Now, those movies need to be PG rated or lower, or I can't take my kids. Otherwise it will cost me slightly more to hire a baby sitter and buy dinner for them to eat. Naturally, I end up going to see a movie after the matenee times when I hire a baby sitter, so I also tend to pay another $4.00 more for my two tickets than I normally would have. Whaa!

Also, theaters only take 20% of the box office the first few weeks a movie opens. So they hike the price of consession stand items to compensate. Which, is good business, but not very friendly to patrons. Not to mention their stands take on average of 10 minutes to clear your way through. So, you better be extra early if you want to buy that tub 'o pop-corn. Which isn't fun. And I can't pause the movie when I have to pee after drinking their 32oz of pop. (Which I'm suspicious about them lacing their drinks with pee enducing chemicals just to get me to come back to see the parts I missed!) And I can't tape it with my camcorder to re-watch it. If the sound is messed up, the screen is dirty, the idiots who bring their screaming babies are in force, I can't get a pass to re-watch the movie. One ticket, one admittance... I can't even bring my own food in if I wanted to have taco's while sitting for two hours. Bummer on convience.

So, now I've got a nice 50" screen at home, a nice set of 5.1 THX Certified speakers & Amp, and a DVD player. I can watch DVD movies at night, bring my own food - which costs far less, send the kids to another room to watch their own DVD movies, and pause the movie when I have to pee. All this for $9.99 - $19.99 which is the cost of a DVD. Or, better yet, for $3.95 - the cost of renting a DVD. And I only have to wait 6 months or less to see the film. Plus I get more content on the DVD.

The way I see it, DVD's are a better deal. There isn't a good reason for me to keep paying a premium at the box office. Especially if they are going to offer me less than what I get at home.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[Fantastic Lad]

I must admit, first of all, that I am a Buccaneer-Canadian, and that I am of Chinese (Hong Kong) descent.

Let me say, though, on the MPAA and RIAA's behalf, that piracy is honestly and truly wrong, and is going to cause the destruction of the music and movie industries (and whatever else can be downloaded, like personal and SOHO targetting apps such as games).

The only reason why the MPAA and RIAA's earnings are going up rather than down is because, in North America (where these outfits are based), piracy is still in its infancy. There are two main barriers preventing the music and movie industries from crumbling right now: the last mile distribution problem and piracy source organization.

I don't know. . . My friend is a rabid fan of Hong Kong movies. They are usually available on DVD for between $8 and $15. The pirate copies are $8-$12 dollars; they're badly ripped and unreliable, while the real ones are in the $15 range, and they work all the time. This is in Chinese malls in Canada, and the pirate copies are stacked right there on the shelves along with the real copies. Yet, somehow, the Hong Kong film industry continues to thrive.

I see piracy as a natural method for keeping prices honest. A $28 DVD is a rip off. I hope piracy 'ravages' America. It won't. In America, Walmart will never have pirate copies, nor will American video rental shops.

And movies will continue to proliferate the world. Heck, I knew a guy who's uncle made films for Disney. --He produced one of those stupid movies with an ape which plays on a sports team. Anyway, he was approached by the Mob with the proverbial suitcase full of cash and instructed to spend it very wastefully on products and film Union services which would be provided. Organized crime has been using Hollywood since day-one to launder money.

The MPAA is about greed. --That and control. --Like this idiot 'War on Terrorism' the MPAA is a line sold to the naive designed to create a political atmosphere where putting people in jail for no good reason is accepted by the public. It's largely about control.

And anyway. . . Film and television are too important a medium of cultural mind-programming to be abandoned regardless of what happens to the market.

Sadly, there will be awful movies for as long as there is an industrialized human population. --That is to say, I expect we'll see the end of Hollywood and hockey-playing monkeys in somewhat less than a decade. Here's hoping!

-FL

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[mopslik]

Say, what if they should've earned $10 billion, but only took in $1 billion.

A potential sale is not an actual sale, and cannot be accounted for as such.

It's often argued that those who DL movies would never have purchased tickets in the first place. Whether that's the case or not is up to you to decide.

Or alternately..

[SuperKendall]

Another case not counted is "downloaded but still bought tickets AND the DVD".

People download movies all the time and still buy the DVD or go see the movie (or both). So you can't even count all of these numbers as "potential sales lost" because some were converted into actual sales - we just don't know how much.

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[dillon_rinker]

No matter how badly badly unlawful copying hurts their proficts, it doesn't give them the right to bribe Congress into unconstitutional extensions of copyright. They aren't interested in enforcing the law of the land. Indeed, they are willing to diminish the rule of law (passing unconstitutional laws) and increase contempt for the law (passing laws the majority WILL disobey)long as it increases their profits.

Yes, copying contrary to the law is wrong. Somehow, I can't get too worked up about it.

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[Raindance]

The point is not that we're just "judg[ing] the MPAA based on what they took in."

The point is that we're judging what the MPAA has showcased as the fundamental argument against filesharing- that filesharing cripples it's ability to do business.

This is evidence that this central argument and all the rhetoric that surrounds it is *false*. The MPAA has a right to conduct business, but not to whine to moviegoers (through their pre-movie advertisements from the 'working stiffs') and lawgoers over something tha

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[belmolis]

It's true that the fact that the movie industry is immensely profitable doesn't justify improper copying and downloading, but for me at least that isn't the point. The point is that the MPAA and RIAA and their ilk are asking for extraordinary measures on the grounds that without them their industries are in trouble. They want to eliminate fair use, eliminate time-shifting, outlaw technology could be used to infringe their copyrights, and make it impossible for anyone outside of a small number of companies to create software and hardware. They also want to bypass important legal procedures and protections of privacy, such as the need to get a court to issue a subpoena.

These are extraordinary demands, which should be met, if at all, only for a very good reason. The argument that they make is that without these measures they will be unable to stay in business or at least unable to produce the same quality and quantity of material. The fact that they are actually making money hand over fist shows that this argument is false. Even if they are losing a lot of sales due to illegal copying, the industry isn't in danger and there is no justification for meeting their demands. They're crying wolf.

The privileges given to an industry always have to belanced against the public good. Consider the parallel case of old-fashioned printed books. Publishers no doubt lose sales because people can obtain books from libraries and read them there or borrow them. In spite of this, we wouldn't, I hope, give in to a demand by the publishing industry that libraries be outlawed so that they can maximize their profits. The public good of having libraries outweighs the desire of publishers to be more profitable. Now, if it were the case that publishers couldn't stay in business without some additional revenue, we might change our position. We might, for example, agree to a system that paid publishers each time a library patron checked out a book or even (here's a use for RFID, I guess) every time a patrol used a book in the library. But in the absence of an economic crisis for the publishing industry we probably wouldn't do this. Our attitude is that publishers make a reasonable amount of money the way things are and that it is just tough that libraries cut into their potential income.

So what the profits for the movie industry tell me is that nothing needs to be changed. They're welcome to enforce their copyrights by existing means. If they can track which Academy members leak films and go after them, fine by me. But since they're making a reasonable profit, there's no reason to give in to their extraordinary demands. It ain't broke, so we don't need to fix it.

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[iabervon]

Movies are free if you don't see them. If a movie is bad enough that I wouldn't pay to see it, I'd walk out even if it were free. Actually, having paid to see a movie, I'd be more likely to waste a couple of hours on it, just in case it got better.

The accounting for the movie business, like any other IP-based business, is hard to make any sense of, because it doesn't cost the movie company anything for someone to see the movie. Pricing is based not on per-unit cost, but on what people are willing to pay. N

Re:But what's the possible amount?

[Cecil]

If you dont work in finished goods (ie, somthing that you can hold or touch) then why are you getting paid? By your own value system you dont produce anything.

Many people, perhaps even most people, actually make a living performing services. Perhaps you should consider that what you're doing should be a service, not a product.

Intellectual property used to be a very very tiny segment of the economy, comprised mostly of authors. Even musicians used to provide a service, not a product.

Nowadays, there's intellectual property. So no longer do you have to perform services, you just have to perform the service once, record it, and voila! Free money forever! It comes as no surprise to me that this oppressive legal concept is starting to chafe on consumers and the economy.

It's not sustainable. There was a world for you before intellectual property, and there will be a world for you afterwards.

Re:I feel screwed

[mopslik]

I go to the movies and I see a commercial that shows all the people that "lose" money when I pirate movies.

I hate those ads -- preaching to the choir. I mean, I'm in the theatre, with a ticket in my hand, and they're telling me to buy tickets and go to the theatre. Nice.

Plus, I get that wonderful experience of sitting through 15-20 minutes of beverage/car/cell phone commercials prior to my 3 hour movie...

Re:Shocking, I'm sure

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.

Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:

Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59
source [natoonline.org]

Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39
source [natoonline.org]

It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.

Re:Okay, that's it -addresses

[saskboy]

I'd recommend sending them to Michael Moore, and Mel Gibson, the reasons for the renewed interest in the movies. They burst into the other two forbidden topics: Religion, Politics, and Hollywood has Sex locked up already.

Re:anti copyright rant

[Steve B]

Would nagora write in the same manner if hundreds of thousands of people were stealing cars but the automobile industry was still doing record numbers

If the automobile industry were buying laws against do-it-yourself maintenance, initiating scattershot car-theft charges without traditional due process of law, and otherwise behaving in **AA-like fashion, then, he probably would, and most certainly should.