backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Fnoob.. on Mar 11 at 4:59 PM


  (Source: MPAA)
MPAA reports that 2007 saw one of the highest grossing years for the motion picture industry

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) relentlessly bombards the public with copyright and piracy information.  It plagued the news media for years with tireless finger pointing; even its own website is dedicated to giving the public information on copyright laws and piracy.  Different sections, such as Movie Thieves, offer information on who the criminals are and asks individuals to help in their “fight to stop movie thieves!”

The confusing part is the link in the “Latest News” section that claims an all-time high in domestic and global box office sales.  The global market grew 4.9% to $26.6 billion, claims the MPAA, and the U.S. domestic market grew roughly 5.4%, passing the $9.6 billion mark.

“From the threat and eventual reality of a writer’s strike to the global impact of film theft to concerns over the economy, the film industry faced significant challenges in 2007,” stated Dan Glickman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the MPAA. “But, ultimately, we got our Hollywood ending. Once again, diverse, quality films and the timeless allure of the movie house proved a winning combination with consumers around the world.”

It is surprising to see the MPAA claim that the motion picture industry is taking a beating from piracy when their own data shows that the market is producing better than before. This is not to say, however, that piracy doesn't have an effect on the film industry.

According to a study done by the Institute for Public Innovation, motion picture piracy costs the U.S. economy about $20.5 billion annually which includes revenue and “related measures of economic performance”.  The related measure includes loss of jobs, decrease in earning for workers, and the U.S. governments loss of tax revenue.  The study claims that film industry would have added a little over 45,000 new jobs.

Even though the film industry is taking some large hits from piracy, you can rest a little easier knowing that the industry is still raking in quite a sum of cash.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's the overall experience, stupid.
By Fnoob on 3/7/2008 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 5
It's hard to pirate a 100+ ft screen.




RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By kattanna on 3/7/2008 11:03:43 AM , Rating: 5
LOL.. its the overall experience nowadays that keeps me AWAY from the theaters.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By Phlargo on 3/7/2008 11:11:32 AM , Rating: 5
This is also a good point. Movie theatres are dirty and prices for tickets have shot up like mad. The screens are huge, but the visual quality hasn't gotten any better and frequently the audio systems are just too loud (and occasionally clipping or distorted), rather than specifically high quality.

It's amazing, I've actually seen and heard many new details now when watching a movie on an HD player (not that I think people should invest in HD content on discs.. begin the era of digital distribution already!)


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 12:17:36 PM , Rating: 4
Funny I have the opposite experience, it's not loud enough.

Also the DLP screens they have now are terrible, motion blur all over the place.

Even if you take away the dirty floors and the loud talking teenagers and the high prices, my home theater is better in quality in almost every way. Not to mention I can drink beer. And pause it when I need another...


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By sporr on 3/7/2008 12:30:53 PM , Rating: 4
I totally agree.

I have patience, so I will wait until the movie is released on DVD and enjoy it EXACTLY how I want to enjoy it.

Going to the cinema just isnt the enjoyable experience it once was.

Either adapt or, in this particular case, lose revenue.


By JoshuaBuss on 3/7/2008 12:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
the OP post doesn't mention the fact that if you have a 120" screen (I got mine for $120 shipped) and a decent projector (I got mine for $600) and you sit about 10-12 feet away from it the difference between what you feel at the theater and what you feel at home is almost negligible.

Ever since I got a nice screen and projector setup at home I've seen about 2-3 films in the theater at most per YEAR..


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 5:13:28 PM , Rating: 5
I like Mark Cuban's ideas on theaters.

Make a theater just FOR kids, show kids movies and have food and such with wide tables

Make a theater just FOR teenagers - actually ENCOURAGE text-messaging and such - make it a social place.

Make a theater just for adults. Make it so people can make dinner AND movie reservations at the same time. Get their food served and get them out of there just in time for the show to start... Serve alcohol in the theater - not like waiters walking around the theater but like have a bar in back where people can hang out and drink, maybe even talk quietly etc...

Basically make going to the movies a social event (again). People don't go "out" to the movies anymore because the theaters are crappy little boxes with horrible decor, and lousy expensive food.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 6:12:25 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds great on paper...and it's been tried before, at least the dinner-and-a-show type theatres for adults, which serve decent food, along with beer and wine.

While I like them myself, unfortunately, they always seem to go out of business rather quickly.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By MrPickins on 3/8/2008 12:29:27 PM , Rating: 3
Not trying to call you wrong, but Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin, TX has been going strong for ten years or so.

http://www.drafthouse.com/

Most of my friends prefer it to a normal theater.


By danrien on 3/9/2008 5:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
i've been to the drafthouse .... simply amazing.


By HighWing on 3/7/2008 9:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Part of this already does exist in some places.

I've been to one theater that has small tables in front 2, 4 or 6 sets of seats. They serve you a meal before the movie starts and you can still order during the movie as well. The tables are placed just high enough apart that the occasional waiter coming in and out is barely noticeable. They even serve alcohol too.

However, like masher pointed out these places don't seem to stay in business long. I think most of that attributes to the fact that at least for the one I went to, the only items on the menu under $20 were the appetizers. Plus due to the height adjustments from tables, you could only fit maybe 100 people into the theater. Which does not leave much room for packing in the people to make money. In turn I would assume this is the reason higher priced menu items.

As to your idea for a kid theater, I can already foresee many problems with that. Many younger kids don't really like to be away from their parents in public. Many Parents probably will not like to be in there for too long. If it's a theater full of kids, what happens when a fight breaks out?

So as masher said, they look great on paper, but I don't really see them making any money in the long run. They would probably make bank for the first month or two. But as the problems arise and the novelty wears off, to few people would come in that the places won't be able to stay in business.

Though I do see only one way for a place like this to really thrive, and that is if they can stay the same price as a regular movie theater. Everyone here seems to agree that movie theater prices are already approaching, if not past reasonable prices. So most people are already not too willing to pay more just for these extra features. If one of these kinds of theaters can stay at about the same price as a regular movie theater and cater to the middle class, then they would have a chance. The average consumer would see the extra features for the same prices as reasonable and most likely frequent the place, rather then once in a blue moon.


By 4wardtristan on 3/8/2008 1:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make a theater just for adults. Make it so people can make dinner AND movie reservations at the same time. Get their food served and get them out of there just in time for the show to start... Serve alcohol in the theater - not like waiters walking around the theater but like have a bar in back where people can hang out and drink, maybe even talk quietly etc...


in australia its called "Gold class"

it is quite good, and you get massive comfy red electric reclieners(sp?), food, grog etc - but at a price.

its 35$ just for the ticket, not to mention the food/drink/alcohol which has probably close to a 2500% markup...only a few select movies and dodgy session times

is good, but needs vast improvements in areas...


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By spindoc on 3/7/2008 1:04:12 PM , Rating: 4
Drive In - it's making a comeback. Take your own stereo, chairs, booze, friends and party all night.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By Polynikes on 3/7/2008 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
Drive In movies are good times.


By PitViper007 on 3/7/2008 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
They are....But the one that is closest to us is closing after this summer. The original owners died and the inheritors want to use the land for something else...Ah well...


By theapparition on 3/10/2008 10:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
I've been to a few drive-ins. For the life of me, can't remember the movies they were showing. Was too pre-occupied with other activities.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By ksuWildcat on 3/7/2008 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The movie theaters in our area are now all owned by Carmikes (after buying out & closing the competition). They are usually very dirty, noisy (due to obnoxious people), the audio and visual quality is subpar, and to top it off, it costs my wife and I about $25 to go to an evening show, assuming that we don't buy any refreshments.

So, now we only go to about 1 movie per year. For everything else, we wait until it comes out on DVD, and either rent it from Netflix or buy it for $10-12.


By FITCamaro on 3/10/2008 11:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Where the hell do you live that tickets are $12.50? I lived in Orlando and the most expensive theater in tourist locations was $10 a ticket for an adult. The Universal Cineplex was actually a deal at $8 (due to the high quality screens and audio + typically low crowds). Typical price in the Orlando area is $8-9.

Here in SC its about $8.


By fic2 on 3/7/2008 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. I think the last movie I saw in the theater was King Kong. Against my will - my niece wanted to go. I usually just rent them for $1 at RedBox. Include the $0.50 I spend on popcorn and the $0.25 on a drink and I spend under $2. I don't have people talking/texting throughout the movie. I don't have the room too light. All in all a better experience and I save about $15.

Maybe if the movie ticket price included the DVD I would go.


By HOOfan 1 on 3/7/2008 12:20:43 PM , Rating: 5
yeah it is kinda hard to pirate huge crowds, a snot nosed kid kicking the back of your seat, an inconsiderate moron fooling around with their cellphone, some jerk next to you sticking their elbow over the arm rest into your area. But, for some movies it is worth it to see it on the big screen and with the surround sound.


By eye smite on 3/7/2008 1:47:44 PM , Rating: 3
I agree completely. I might go to a theater once a year, but I'd rather stay home and be able to pause for bio break or a snack. My surround sound works great and it's alot cheaper to rent from netflix.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By SlyNine on 3/8/2008 12:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
Personaly I hate the 48hz in theatres, kills me. But then at home you get the 3/2 pulldown ( is that right?) and I see a jiddery effect. Why can they not just shoot movies at 60fps.


By Fnoob on 3/11/2008 4:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why can they not just shoot movies at 60fps.

Because 'back in the day' (and still fairly often) films were shot on actual film (hence the name)... soooo, if you shoot 60fps v 24fps that would be 2.5x more film used. Costs more.

The 3/2 pulldown 'jiddery' effect you are seeing is likely from cheap/old hardware that is not doing the conversion properly. Either that, or you need less coffee/more weed.


By Samus on 3/9/2008 3:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
I like going to the show, meeting people, laughing in a crowd, etc. I met my girlfriend at a prescreening for There Will Be Blood a few months ago because we were the only two people in the theater.


By FITCamaro on 3/10/2008 10:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think cell phone signals should be blocked inside of movie theaters. I don't understand the logic of paying to see a movie and spending the entire time texting on your cell phone.

And thats why I only go to good theaters. Ones that are clean with quality screens and sound.

And for the guy who mentioned the ability to drink, at the Universal Cineplex in Orlando, you can buy beer at the theater. :) Granted its overpriced, but you can buy it.

I just like the atmosphere of going out to a movie. Sitting at home watching a movie with your girlfriend/wife(maybe you have both) is great but I think they like it better when you take them outside of the house.


By redog on 3/7/2008 11:16:53 AM , Rating: 1
"If you build it, they will come."

-R


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By fleshconsumed on 3/7/2008 11:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
More like no one wants to watch a camcorder screener. They are usually so bad it's almost worth paying $16/person to watch it in a theater while dealing with all the commercials and annoying people.


By omnicronx on 3/7/2008 12:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More like no one wants to watch a camcorder screener. They are usually so bad it's almost worth paying $16/person to watch it in a theater while dealing with all the commercials and annoying people.
It's true, I used to be able to do it, but now it just bugs me. I've also noticed that HDTV's have had an impact on movie downloads. I can watch just about anything on a CRT screen, but give me an LCD and most movies are just unwatchable. I only download Telesync's and DVD rips now, and I barely even do that anymore. Worst part is i never understood why if you are ballsy enough to go and tape a whole movie, you cant be ballsy enough to go back and get the audio recording for the blind. Something that movies theatres have (headphone jacks in certain places). I HATE bad audio more than anything.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By BladeVenom on 3/7/2008 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 2
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." -Jack Valenti


By tdawg on 3/7/2008 12:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Jack Valenti did more to harm the motion picture industry than help it. Did anybody see the Oscars this year when they did that tribute to those that passed away this year? They showed Jack Valenti and you could almost feel the desire of people to boo or something.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By djkrypplephite on 3/7/2008 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
You're obviously not an advanced bit torrent user.


By mmntech on 3/7/2008 1:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even have to be a torrent user. Go to any market in Hong Kong and look at the pirated DVDs they're selling. I'd guess 90% of pirated movies are recorded from a theater, and that's a conservative estimate. With video cameras so small today with increasing quality, it's probably easier to do that that rip commercial discs. All you have to do is smuggle it in or team up with somebody who works there to sneak you in after closing time.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By DASQ on 3/7/2008 12:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sitting 3 feet away from my 37" LCD with my speakers and sub turned up is just as good for me.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By Lazarus Dark on 3/7/2008 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you there. Up until recently I would still venture to the theater to see the big effects movies. Why? I lived in an apartment, so I could only turn up my surround so much; I could hardly use my sub at all (I had to attach the sub to the couch so I could feel something without disturbing the neighbors). But I just moved into a house, so I can finally crank it! And damn it sounds good. I have no desire to go to a theater now, my setup is just as good or better without the expense/hassle.

I might see a midnight opening though for Dark Knight or Star Trek. Usually midnight openings are good because everyone there is a real fan and not likely to talk on their cell.


RE: It's the overall experience, stupid.
By tdawg on 3/7/2008 6:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious what theatres you all go to where people are loud, talking on their cell phones, and kicking the chairs? All the theatres around me (Downtown Seattle, Woodinville, Bellevue/Redmond) are well kept and offer a pleasant atmosphere to watch a movie. I really enjoy going to the theatre with friends to watch a movie and the $9 it costs for a ticket is small enough for me not to worry about.


By Lazarus Dark on 3/10/2008 4:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you. Theaters are okay when they're in the richest neighborhoods. Most Americans now are raised by tv. People aren't taught basic decency anymore. I don't meet many decent people anymore.


By borowki on 3/7/2008 3:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
It's even harder to pirate a date at the movie. Try asking a girl to come to your house to watch stuff you've torrented.


Nice spin...
By noirsoft on 3/7/2008 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 5
Your interpretation of the figures is misleading. The worldwide sales are growing because of new markets. If you look at the US numbers (a mature market with high piracy) you will notice that it took until 2007 to surpass 2002 numbers, and the time in between has been relatively flat with many years seeing less money than the year before.

2007 also saw the relase of a larger then normal number of high-quality movies, so the upswing is representative of a statistical anomaly rather than any kind of domestic growth. 2008 is already well behind 2007 in terms of revenue, and it would not surprise me to see 2008 resulting in lower revenue than 2006.




RE: Nice spin...
By mholler on 3/7/2008 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 5
Very true. While gross domestic sales may be at an all-time high, I'm guessing that when adjusted for inflation it is still lower than 2002. The increase in worldwide revenue is also partly due to the declining dollar. Overall, it appears that the motion picture industry is mostly treading water, although they're definitely not hurting for money regardless.


RE: Nice spin...
By Runiteshark on 3/7/2008 11:23:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
2007 also saw the relase of a larger then normal number of high-quality movies,


Thats exactly why 2007 did much better then other years, what else do you think it would be? Perhaps they will figure it out, that most of their movies suck.


RE: Nice spin...
By FITCamaro on 3/10/2008 10:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. 2007 actually saw the release of GOOD movies. 2008 numbers will probably suck since I don't really think there's a whole lot coming out this year. In 2007 at times it seemed like there was a new good movie out every week.

While I'm sure a lot of people are satisfied with mind-numbing slasher films which are all the f*ing same, I like movies to have a....whats it called?.....oh yeah, a plot.


RE: Nice spin...
By TomZ on 3/7/2008 11:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2007 also saw the relase of a larger then normal number of high-quality movies

That's an interesting statement, because when it came time for Oscar nominations, I remember a lot of talk about how there weren't many high-quality movies in 2007, and as a result, the Oscar nominations were largely given to more obscure movies that, prior to the nomination, didn't receive much popular attention. In fact, practically none of the "best movie" nominees had any commercial success in 2007.


RE: Nice spin...
By tdawg on 3/7/2008 12:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
What?! The best picture nominees had both high critical and commercial success. No Country for Old Men, Michael Clayton, Juno, There Will Be Blood, and Atonement were all very strong movies that did well at the box office. Couple that with the Transformers movie, the latest Bourne movie and a variety of films that showed up in 2007 and it's easy to understand why 2007 was a successful and profitable year for Hollywood.


RE: Nice spin...
By TomZ on 3/7/2008 12:43:10 PM , Rating: 3
That's wrong, only Juno was a box office hit in 2007.

There Will Be Blood was only in a very limited release in 2007 - LA and NY only. The rest of the country was not even able to see it in 2007 - we had to wait until February of 2008.

Atonment was released in the US in early December, and that was only a limited release. Wider release in early 2008.

Michael Clayton was released in October, but didn't do great at the box office. It was re-released in January of 2008.

No Country was given only a limited release in Nov of 2007, with a wider release in early 2008 (sound familiar)?

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/os...


RE: Nice spin...
By tdawg on 3/7/2008 6:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. I guess I'm thinking of the 2007 Oscar movie season, rather than the 2007 calendar.


RE: Nice spin...
By tdawg on 3/7/2008 6:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
I really liked this statement from the USA Today article:

"The academy is more concerned with rewarding the best film now than they ever have been. They're less concerned with rewarding popular entertainment," says Sasha Stone, who runs the industry blog AwardsDaily.com.

If this proves to be true, I couldn't be happier. I'm still pissed that Titanic hijacked the Oscar from Good Will Hunting, or LA Confidential. Based on it's level of "excellence" it shouldn't have been nominated at all. Not to mention James Cameron's Best Director Oscar and the craptastic Celine Dion song beating out Elliott Smith's "Miss Misery" for the best original song that year. Travesty. So I will be happy if the Acadamy continues on a path to honor those films that are actually great, rather than fiscally successful.


RE: Nice spin...
By TomZ on 3/7/2008 7:07:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, but I'll have to add that No Country winning the picture of the year was a joke. My wife and I saw all 5 of the nominated movies the day before (which was awesome), and there is no question in our minds that all 4 other movies were more deserving of the award. I'm not saying that No Country was a bad movie, just that the others were all excellent.


RE: Nice spin...
By jtesoro on 3/7/2008 10:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Good article and I'm all for the Oscars rewarding the best film rather than the popular one. Here's another article though from Time Magazine which has the opposite viewpoint: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1...

It's interesting in that rewarding "popular" movies will probably make the Oscars get a bigger audience but in the long run I don't think it's a good idea.

Have only watched Juno and There will be Blood so far (liked them both). Still trying to catch up with the rest...


RE: Nice spin...
By tdawg on 3/8/2008 12:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't see TWBB or Atonement, but Michael Clayton, Juno and No Country were all very good movies, in my opinion. I personally loved No Country For Old Men. It was a great story that was engaging and atmospheric and got everybody talking afterwards. Personally, I would have been happy if either Juno or No Country won and am glad that Juno picked up original screenplay. I really think No Country deserved all it received on Oscar night. To each his own, right?


RE: Nice spin...
By maven81 on 3/9/2008 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The academy is more concerned with rewarding the best film now than they ever have been. They're less concerned with rewarding popular entertainment


Say what? If there's one reason why I never take these jokers seriously, it's that they never pick the movie that captures the public imagination, or leaves a lasting impact.
For instance, in 2001 they picked a beautiful mind over lord of the rings. Who even remembers that beautiful mind movie? and it's only been 7 years. I know that 50 years from now that won't be the movie people will be talking about...
This is ridiculous myopia. Same was true for star wars, and too many other movies to mention. If that's not proof that their opinions are worthless, I don't know what is.


RE: Nice spin...
By Lazarus Dark on 3/7/2008 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I just noticed the chart after I posted another comment. The chart shows US sales relatively stagnant for many years while international profit has steadily risen. So I'd agree, the increase is due to new and emerging markets, I doubt even existing international markets have made any more profits, I'd bet it's exclusively new markets opening up.


Common Sense
By gaakf on 3/7/2008 10:59:14 AM , Rating: 5
Most people pay to see movies they like, and pirate movies they probably wouldn't have paid to see.
The MPAA should just focus more on making movies people will like.




RE: Common Sense
By Phlargo on 3/7/2008 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Bingo. Here's me. I do it with other things too. I preview things. If they are worth while, I always buy them. Most aren't and I don't keep them or finish them.


RE: Common Sense
By tmouse on 3/7/2008 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yea right... Let’s see the stock market would do much better if investors would focus more on buying stocks that are going to go up in value. The police would do better to go after real criminals. Yes the world would be better if everyone just succeeded instead of trying too, kind of a master of the obvious. Do you really think they actually TRY to make crap? The problem is what you like and what I like and what anyone else likes probably is not the same. I would agree I think a lot of the entertainment media produces fecal material (doesn't that more intellectual than shi@) but there are a lot of people paying to be entertained by it. I have never believed the argument "I only pirate the stuff I'm not interested in" to me that is the stupidest statement I can think of. Just ignore it; if no one sees it and there are not a bazillion copies of it floating around the net then someone WILL say maybe we should not make MORE of it. It’s that simple. If you would not pay for it, that is your right, BUT if you would not then you have absolutely no right to see it period! We are not talking food, water, air or rudimentary living conditions here, its entertainment. There is no constitutional right to be entertained. You pay; you take a chance if you do not like it then do not go to other movies by that director or with that actor. Do you ask for your money back if you go to a play or a comedy club and were not entertained... probably not. Piracy may or may not cost them money (It probably does the amount is debatable) but it also directly results in a continuation of the same level of mediocrity the industry produces by giving them excuses.


RE: Common Sense
By gaakf on 3/7/2008 4:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you would not pay for it, that is your right, BUT if you would not then you have absolutely no right to see it period!

So... If I worked at a movie theater, I should have to pay to see a movie when my shift is over?

And if I went over to a friend's place, I should pay him for allowing me to watch one of his DVDs?

What about playing a video game at Best Buy that I haven't paid for?

tmouse, I understand where you are coming from but your statement is a little extreme.

Just as with music, I do not think it's wrong to "preview" a movie when I am skeptical . If I see a movie I really like, regardless of where I saw it, you better believe I am going to go out and buy it.


RE: Common Sense
By TomZ on 3/7/2008 4:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, intellectual property law doesn't work that way. The "free preview" that you describe is a right that the copyright owner can give out, not one for you to take. I think you should in general consider the rights of the other party - the people whose work you are "borrowing." They are people, too, with rights just like you. And you are depriving them of their rights.

It's no more right than breaking into a car at a car dealership and taking it for a test spin without the dealer's permission before deciding to buy it.


RE: Common Sense
By xRyanCat on 3/8/2008 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he meant it more like going to your friends house to test drive his new SUV, before going to buy your own. Or your friend has a Corvette, and you go to drag race in it once, but decide it's really not worth your money to go get your own.

In the same way as going to your friends to check out a movie, then deciding, yeah it was good, but not worth my money.


RE: Common Sense
By jtesoro on 3/7/2008 10:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The MPAA should just focus more on making movies people will like.


That's a tough call. On one hand I agree with tmouse who said that they they don't actually TRY to make crap (i.e. something people will hate). They of course wouldn't want to make movies that lose money because people hate them. But they couldn't really know with any certainty what people will like and not like.

The flip side to this though is that a lot (maybe most) of the movies which make a lot of money are actually those which ARE crap. Those which some would say are "high quality" tend to attract a limited audience.

So what to do? As I said, that's a tough call!


RE: Common Sense
By sporr on 3/7/2008 12:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Its just easier for the MPAA to place the blame on piracy for loss of revenue rather than adapting to the changing times.


RE: Common Sense
By TomZ on 3/7/2008 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most people pay to see movies they like, and pirate movies they probably wouldn't have paid to see.

I don't think "most people," i.e., more than 50%, pirate movies. Those who pirate movies are a small but vocal minority.

I will say, however, that there are a lot of people who are pretty ignorant about the difference between right and wrong. There are tons of people who, I think, don't even know that copying movies is illegal or bad in any way. For example, we received a Christmas gift from a relative, which was basically a home-made copy of a DVD set for a TV series. I don't think they even realized how messed up that is.

I'm not meaning to get preachy here, and I do recognize that the movie industry does go overboard in some ways, but I do think that people should try to do what is right, even if the technology makes it easy to do the wrong thing. In addition, I do think that more education is needed to at least inform people about copyright laws. After all, one could argue that the movie industry is just responding to widespread piracy, and that if that piracy didn't exist, they would have no need to respond with such Draconian tactics. It's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing.


RE: Common Sense
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 1:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we received a Christmas gift from a relative, which was basically a home-made copy of a DVD set for a TV series
That might even top giving away the fruitcake you got for a gift the previous year...


RE: Common Sense
By theapparition on 3/10/2008 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
I swear they could stop making fruitcakes, and you'll still see one show up as a gift 20years from now.


RE: Common Sense
By gaakf on 3/7/2008 4:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, one could argue that the movie industry is just responding to widespread piracy, and that if that piracy didn't exist, they would have no need to respond with such Draconian tactics.

This isn't a changing of the times though. Piracy has always been a factor as far back as I can remember with VHS. I really believe (in a general sense) that people who regularly pirate, are people who do not have the money to go out to the movies every week.

The movie industry always paints a picture that shows them losing billions of dollars that they wouldn't have had anyway if piracy didn't exist.


RE: Common Sense
By MrBlastman on 3/7/2008 3:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Here Here!

I think the RIAA could learn a thing or two from your post as well.

At least we have Independent Films - I've seen quite a few ones recently that have been made in the last couple of years and each and every one of them have been far superior to most anything Hollywood has managed to produced.


Flawed logic
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is surprising to see the MPAA claim that the motion picture industry is taking a beating from piracy when their own data shows that the market is producing better than before.
World box office receipts are rising because not only is the world population still growing quickly, but many nations are now becoming prosperous enough for its citizens to afford movies.

A much better metric is US Box office admissions (total number of tickets sold), which hit a high of 1.6M in 2002, and have declined since then (1.4M in 2007), despite a population more than 4% higher.




RE: Flawed logic
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 12:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
Spin it however you want, the fact is they are making more money now than they ever have in the past. Yet they continue to lobby for more restrictive copyright laws that take away more and more of citizens' rights.


RE: Flawed logic
By rcc on 3/7/2008 1:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be too dense here, but what rights?


RE: Flawed logic
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 5:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
are you kidding, retarded, or just been asleep for the last 10 years?

every day the movie and music industry comes up with ever more restrictive copy protection and DRM schemes to limit our "fair use" rights.


RE: Flawed logic
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "they are making more money now than they ever ..."

"They"? You seem to think all that $42B/year goes to a couple cigar-smoking bald guys with Jewish surnames. Ever watch a movie? It may only star two people and have a cast of 30, but the credits will include 300_ people.

Guess what? All those people got PAID. In fact, the movie industry employs several hundred thousand people, and also pays a huge amount of state, local, and federal taxes. It also spends the majority of its receipts on advertsing, marketing, and other areas, indirectly supporting many more industries. Without the movie industry, the State of California would be bankrupt in a heartbeat.

"They" is really "Us". Intellectual property, of which movies are one part, are now one the nation's most important exports. When someone in China or Germany pirates a Hollywood movie, it hurts all Americans. I'm surprised you can't see that.


RE: Flawed logic
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 6:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
what the heck are you babbling about?

"they" = the entire movie industry. you know, the topic which we are discussing here?

"hurts all Americans" oh please... so you're saying every american makes money from the movie industry?

that's great news because it means I'm owed hella back pay, who do I contact to get my check cut??

also please cut the anti-semitic remarks.


RE: Flawed logic
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 6:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "so you're saying every american makes money from the movie industry?"

When they pay billions in taxes, and employ several hundred thousand Americans, all of whom also pay taxes and use their salary to buy American goods-- yes, of course we all make money from that industry. That's the entire point.

It's even more than that. What in the world do you think makes a strong US dollar? Do you think exchange rates are just set by someone rolling a dice somewhere? The underlying basis is how much US goods, services, and investments are purchased overseas, versus how much we buy in

So when little Johnny pirates a movie, and spends that $20 instead on a Chinese toy, yes it indeed hurts all Americans. When little Sven or little Yang Mi does the same, its hurts even more.

You can complain copyright restrictions have gotten out of hand, and you'll have a point. But trying to deny that piracy of US intellectual property doesn't hurt US citizens is just blind foolishness.


RE: Flawed logic
By jtesoro on 3/8/2008 8:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So when little Johnny pirates a movie, and spends that $20 instead on a Chinese toy, yes it indeed hurts all Americans. When little Sven or little Yang Mi does the same, its hurts even more.


Now I don't know about everyone else, but I think that's one solid statement.


RE: Flawed logic
By darkpaw on 3/7/2008 3:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad someone brought this up, shouldn't be surprised it was masher.

The totals may have gone up, but movie prices have gone way up since 2002 and total attendance is down over 10%. That really isn't a healthy thing. As Masher noted above there are a lot more people involved in movies then the idiots that get $20M just for showing up and reading their lines. The people that really got hurt during the writers strikes were all the small independant comapnies that service the studios.

Sure, they are over emphasising the impact of piracy, but it does have an impact and people do get hurt by it (regardless of what the piracy appologists may think).


numbers game
By Screwballl on 3/7/2008 11:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
ok so let me get this straight, in the US there was a record high $9.6Billion box office for 2007... yet piracy costs $20.5 Billion??? So if there was no piracy they would be seeing box office numbers in the US of $30 billion yearly??? What a load of bull.
Not likely since the numbers have stayed on a slow but consistent rise by their own graph which means that piracy has a very minimal impact on their numbers, and thus shows that they are money hungry, greedy, deceitful and hypocritical.
Now if you add in worldwide, the numbers there have gone up 98.8% in 6 years ($8.6B to $17.1B) so that further strengthens their hypocritical status. They're making more money than ever yet still chasing down petty thieves to make a few extra bucks.




RE: numbers game
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 12:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "So if there was no piracy they would be seeing box office numbers in the US of $30 billion yearly??? What a load of bull."

Oops - your analysis has a few errors. First of all, total motion picture revenues include not only box office receipts, but DVD, TV licensing and other sales. Also, the loss figures are what the US motion picture industry loses due to world piracy, not just in the US.

Is the $20B loss figure correct? I don't know, but given the entire industry is pulling in some $43B/year now, it does't seem wholly outrageous.


RE: numbers game
By omnicronx on 3/7/2008 12:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, the loss figures are what the US motion picture industry loses due to world piracy, not just in the US.
Very interesting, so let me get this straight; They are still making 20 billion a year, 20 billion is 'lost' due to piracy worldwide. Yet they fail mention that countries like China are the ones doing most of the pirating? Many North Americans at least still go to the Theater, meanwhile in China or Japan you might turn into the laughing stock of the neighborhood for buying too many 'legal movies'.

Lots and lots of movie pirating does go on in North America, don't get me wrong, but who was to say I would have actually gone to see that movie in theaters anyways. Hell I see most new releases (at least the ones i think are going to be good), download hardly any movies anymore and yet I go to the theater once or twice a month. The movie industry is complaining about lost revenue that would have never really been theirs anyways.

Sitting at home and clicking a few buttons is a far cry from paying 20 bucks for tickets and popcorn... and then there is getting my lazy ass off the couch in the first place.


RE: numbers game
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 12:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yet they fail mention that countries like China are the ones doing most of the pirating?"

Fail to mention? They clearly state these are worldwide totals in the report summary. Furthermore, the "they" here isn't even the MPAA -- the study was done by another group entirely.


RE: numbers game
By The Irish Patient on 3/7/2008 2:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
You corrected an error in the report without realizing it.

The report says "motion picture piracy costs the U.S. economy about $20.5 billion annually" whereas your post analyzes the loss to the motion picture industry .

I don't doubt that piracy causes a substantial loss to the industry, even if it isn't as high as $20B.

What I don't believe is that movie piracy causes a substantial loss to the U.S. economy as a whole. Few Americans would put any of their money into savings even if their lives depended on it. If Timmy does a rent and rip of Transformers, the industry loses $20 but Timmy now has an extra $20 in his pocket. Timmy will inevitably spend the $20 on something else, resulting in extra revenue to some other sector of the economy.

Government and industry claims for losses to the U.S. economy always assume that Timmy sets fire to the $20 bill saved by ripping Transformers. Government has a legitimate public interest in passing sufficient laws to make copyrights enforceable. But there is not enough evidence of harm to the U.S. economy to justify some of the Draconian laws that Congress has passed, or tried to pass, for the benefit of the music and movie industries.


RE: numbers game
By Screwballl on 3/7/2008 7:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, total motion picture revenues include not only box office receipts, but DVD, TV licensing and other sales. Also, the loss figures are what the US motion picture industry loses due to world piracy, not just in the US.


1: read the story and the IPI Publication summary, both say very specifically:
quote:
Motion picture piracy now results in total lost output among all U.S. industries of $20.5 billion annually.

This does not say worldwide, just in the US, on both websites.

2: The story AND chart say US and worldwide "box office sales", not "box office and media sales". The PDF in this story mentioned the same thing, only box office sales with mentions of some influence of online advertising. At no point did they say it also included sales of media such as DVD, BluRay, HD-DVD or any other media base, only box office sales.

Sorry but no analysis errors when information was checked before posting. Granted some of my post was opinion but the factual numbers based on the charts and such are grounds for a factual basis.


RE: numbers game
By walk2k on 3/7/2008 12:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Is this a surprise? To anyone?

Music sales are also at all-time highs despite all the crying over piracy.


RE: numbers game
By JakLee on 3/7/2008 3:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
But it all depends on, in the end, how many of those people who pirate a movie would actually go & see it they had to actually pay. I will occationally go to a chick flick with my wife because she really likes them but I would not pay to go by myself (or with my friends for that matter, LOL). Same idea with pirated movies, I am sure many of the people who pirate would have likely just skipped the movie if they did not have access to it for free. I think it would be interesting to get numbers on how many people downloaded a movie/song/album/game & then actually enjoyed it so much that they purchased it later?


Old funny movie
By BruceLeet on 3/7/2008 11:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll pretend Im Jamaican man, yeah!


Maybe people will start going to theaters more, now that Stage6 is done.




RE: Old funny movie
By BruceLeet on 3/7/2008 11:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
Has the MPAA ever seen the back of a twenty-dollar bill man? On weeeeed?


RE: Old funny movie
By Bioniccrackmonk on 3/7/2008 11:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
Thurgood: Sampson, I stick to my story man, I come from Jamaica.

Sampson: Which part of Jamaica?

Thurgood: Right near the beach, boyeee!!!


RE: Old funny movie
By AstroCreep on 3/7/2008 11:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
"Yes, Cuban B!"


RE: Old funny movie
By TheNuts on 3/7/2008 12:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Lord...if you can hear me....HELP!!!

...He had sex wit my MAMA!!!


RE: Old funny movie
By LatinMessiah on 3/7/2008 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the correct phrase is:

"Lawd...if you listen'......HELP!!!!"


RE: Old funny movie
By BruceLeet on 3/7/2008 2:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Kenny in Prison: Your a man, you're not a fish *makes fish lips* =o where did that come from?! you walk around on both legs, homo erectus, did I say homo? I didnt mean that! Thurgood! Where are you Thurgood!?

NO!*scribbles on nasty nate's calender picture* NO!...Naugty jungle of love NO! Devil man...Devil man 6 6 6 the mark of the beast NO!


20 billion???
By TheDoc9 on 3/7/2008 11:22:17 AM , Rating: 5
LOL,,,ROFL

Classic hollywood accounting.




High ticket prices.
By ajvitaly on 3/7/2008 11:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Blame the high ticket prices on the Denzel Washingtons and Tom Cruises and Chris Tuckers (among others) - actors that REFUSE to star in movies for less than $20 million. And shame on us for continuing to pay to see them.




RE: High ticket prices.
By smilingcrow on 3/7/2008 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 1
“Blame the high ticket prices on the Denzel Washingtons and Tom Cruises and Chris Tuckers (among others) - actors that REFUSE to star in movies for less than $20 million. And shame on us for continuing to pay to see them.”

Am I supposed to ask at the multiplex how much the actors get paid for their current film so that I can boycott those that earn ‘too much’?
Provided I don’t pay more for a Tom Snooze film why should I care how much he was paid? It’s as meaningless as saying that I should boycott films that cost over $100M to produce. If it costs me the same to view then I’m not concerned.

If you want to shame anyone then try shaming the studios for paying the actors so much. If they all said FU to the money grabbers then they wouldn’t have to over pay them.


RE: High ticket prices.
By joemoedee on 3/11/2008 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blame the high ticket prices on the Denzel Washingtons and Tom Cruises and Chris Tuckers (among others) - actors that REFUSE to star in movies for less than $20 million. And shame on us for continuing to pay to see them.


Well, there's someone, somewhere, eager to write them the 20 million dollar check, that has much more money than any of those actors. Combined.

Same thing with professional sports. People complain that salaries are so high, yet its the owner reaping the major rewards, not the players.

As long as people continue to fork out the money to see them, they'll keep raising the price of admission.

Blame the powers that be, not the employees trying to get their piece of the action.


Vista article?
By Nimbo on 3/7/2008 11:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
This is out of context,
I clicked to a article about Vista activation crack from anandtech.com that just disappeared before I got here. Did anybody read it? Did its contents have the merit of an auto-censure?




RE: Vista article?
By tricon on 3/7/2008 1:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I saw that link as well only to find the page missing. Something about being able to activate pirated copies of Vista with a new crack.


By MrBlastman on 3/7/2008 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
At 10 bucks a ticket, the wife and I just can't afford to see more than a few movies a year.

I know, I know, adjusted for inflation, lets say for instance back in 1992, 6.50 was the average ticket price for an evening show - at least around here, what would it be now?

Figuring in the inflation rate over the years, the inflation adjusted value is 9.78.

Source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

So, taking into account inflation, we are nearly spot on in the same spot that we were back then. Regardless - it hurts still! Our 17 bucks a month at Netflix gets us far more bang for our buck.

Still, I don't think there will ever be a replacement for celluloid at the cinema until they move over to pure digital photography and playback. At that point I think I'll stop going to the theater alltogether. There is a certain inherent quality with pure analog celluloid that really gives film a particular "feel" (when it is filmed properly of course) and sets mood and imagery in a certain way that digital can not reproduce - well, at least with the resolution that pure film can.

The day celluloid goes will be the tragic end of cinema.

Until then, I'll remain continually more stingy in how I dole out my dollars due to the cost being quite prohibitive.




By Roy2001 on 3/7/2008 12:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
So their revenue would be trippled or even more if they totally ban the piracy.

Wait, if p2p sharing were stopped totally, those downloaders would buy all movies they planned to download?




Spin control
By tjr508 on 3/7/2008 1:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
In relation to commodities, 2001 was still a better year than 2007. This analysis is just as stupid as as people saying the price of gas has tripled over the last 12 years.
We could use a little better dollar math on a website filled with engineers and scientists.




Spiderman 2
By 7Enigma on 3/10/2008 8:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
Last movie I saw in the theater, probably the last one I'll ever see. Around that time I did the math on the cost of setting up my own HT setup vs. spending money on ever increasing movie tickets for (at the time) continuously worse and worse movies (and coinciding worse and worse disrespectful patrons), along with all the convienences of having my own setup.

It was a no-brainer. Funny thing is I haven't even SEEN (rented or otherwise) a movie in the last year. I've been meaning to see The Departed at some point since I heard it was very good, but just haven't found the time. Piracy will be the least of the MPAA's problems if enough people start avoiding the theaters.




You can't pirate an experience
By thehat2k5 on 3/7/2008 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 1
Trust me. I have a seen a few handi-cam movies. I cant stand to watch more than 5 minutes of it! Last thing I want to do is to destroy the movie experience for a shitty facsimile.
I have tripled my movie theater visits since the price came down. Half price Tuesdays are back! So now I can actually justify a $10 movie because it now includes popcorn! It's one thing to be charged $10 bucks to experience the movie in a dolby digital sound room, but to be raped on the refreshments that are marked 5000% just makes me sick. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a really hard time saying no to the smell of fresh buttered popcorn when I walk through the movie theater doors...I of course bring my own pop in. Rape me on the popcorn, its tasty. Im NOT paying the same 5000% markup on watered down fountain pop!




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki