The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the main lobbying group for Hollywood’s studios has continued it’s effort on publicly displaying it’s stupidity for all the world to see and marvel at. CNN ran a good story on the new efforts by the Band of Morons (MPAA) who recently once again yelled from a podium that they are losing billions of dollars to movie piracy. Yes, a sad tale being told by a guy in a $6000 suit. However, their story just doesn’t jive with reality or common sense.
The MPAA seemed to glean it’s strategy from the Grand Moff Tarkin school of intimidation: “Fear. Fear will keep the local systems (internet users) in line. Fear of this battle station (lawsuits).
“We have taken action against over 100 servers in many countries on four continents,” said John Malcolm, the director of worldwide anti-piracy at the MPAA. He said steps were taken this week in the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Finland and the Netherlands.
What a joke. I work in a law firm. I know how much litigation can cost. It is a waste of time and energy, especially when you consider that it has little to no effect. Look at what happened with the music industry’s big crusade to sue little Sally Sweetcakes for having an NSync’ song on her computer in her bed room:
…peer-to-peer traffic dropped after the music industry first launched a series of lawsuits against individuals accused of illegal downloading, but that overall downloading has since rebounded.
But does the MPAA learn anything from this lesson? Apparently not. The only thing that results from these tyrannical lawsuits is individuals getting seriously hurt without any other world wide effect. So what’s the point? And while we’re talking about “The Point”, how much REAL money is the industry losing to movie piracy anyway?
The MPAA would have you and I believe that they’re going hungry… but they can afford to spend a record $270 million dollars on making and marketing The Polar Express. They claim it’s financially crippling them… but they can afford to pay Julia Roberts (just as an example) $20 million to appear in one of their films. They claim the industry is being destroyed… all while record box office records are set year after year. They cry poor while year after year making it more expensive for you and me to go to a movie… does anyone out there feel any sympathy at all? Not me. So how much are they really losing?
Keep these common sense thoughts in mind:
1) Each download does not represent lost box office money or DVD sale. The majority of people who download something are usually getting something they didn’t bother seeing when it was in theaters… and they certainly didn’t avoid seeing it in theaters so they could watch a crappy handycam version of it 5 months later. So while they are seeing it for free… the reality is that no industry money was lost.
2) For most people it’s a novelty. A friend of mine recently gave me a handycam copy of The Incredibles. Cool. But it’s crap (like all of them), and I still went to see it in the theaters 2 more times. It’s just novel to have it there, but it certainly didn’t stop me from giving more money to the MPAA.
3) It takes FOREVER to download a movie from the net. Even with High Speed Internet it’s quite a wait… and you’re waiting for a crap copy. This deters most people who otherwise would have downloaded a 4 meg mp3.
4) With DVD burners it’s possible to copy a DVD. Oh wait a minute… we’ve been able to do that easily for the last 20 years… it’s called a VCR! That didn’t seem to slow down the industry.
There are exceptions to all the things listed above, and I’m certainly not trying to claim that the industry is losing zero dollars on movie piracy. However, the problem is not as systemic as they would have us believe.
Here’s my bit of advice to the movie industry. It’s the same advice that I gave the music industry 5 years ago. “Quit stomping your feet and beating your chest you morons! Stop persecuting teenagers with internet connections when that isn’t going to solve your problem at all! YOU CAN NOT FIGHT THIS… SO FIND A WAY TO PROFIT FROM IT INSTEAD!”
Seriously, look at the music industry. They finally clued in that fighting the internet was a losing battle… so they found a way to profit from it instead… and man are services like iTunes making money! The movie industry needs to develop it’s own paradigm and economic model for taking advantage of these trends… but there are waysto be found if they’d stop using up their time, energy and money for hunting down little Billy in his bedroom as he downloads The Girl Nexdoor.
Honestly… how are people who were clearly smart enough to get outrageously rich be so damn stupid at the same time? Is it just me? Am I out to lunch on this? Your thoughts?
**UPDATE**
Richard added this good little paragraph in the comments:There’s no way I would consider that I’ve ever cheated the movie industry out of money, however they’ve more than cheated enough out of me with their false advertising for bad movies, poor quality of the film stock being shown, bad cinema setup causing poor quality, bad food that cost an arm and a leg (and probably is actually an arm or a leg since it’s always hotdogs for me!), creation of regionalised DVD system, etc.
Your 4th point under “common sense thoughts” made me laugh. And all of the points made absolute sense. But then I suffer from having a modicum of common sense, so I get it.
Instead of spouting about all the lost profits from movies downloaded off the ‘net, the MPAA should be more concerned about people like me — those who are not willing to spend their hard earned dollars to support overpaid actors, directors and others high up in the money making machine of Hollywood. I used to enjoy going to movies, but no more, not with what they charge. It isn’t worth it to me. I have never rented a movie in my life, I haven’t paid to see a movie in years, although I have seen a few thanks to the free passes I got from the place I volunteer with, and I have no desire to change this in the future. I could buy 2 books for the price they are charging at the theatres and the entertainment would last longer than the 1.5 hours I get from watching a movie. And I’m being generous when I say that movie watching is entertainment. Pretty much every movie I’ve seen in the last few years, courtesy of those free passes, was absolute tripe. And, one was an Oscar winning picture to boot! I know I can’t be the only one disillusioned by “Hollywood”. If the MPAA seriously believes any lack of theatre attendance has to do with internet downloading or any other form of piracy, they are seriously deluded. How about the ridiculously high ticket prices? Did they ever clue in to the idea that the cost might have something to do with it?
The reason the big movie companies don’t sue the makers of the DVD burners and CD burners is because of a Sony-BetaMax case from 20 years ago. It shields them of liability for devices that have a legitimate legal use. It is also considered “time-shifting,” a legal fair use where the copy is used to watch the movie at another time, not to make an ilegal copy.
Hi mate, my name is Luiz and I live in Brazil.
There is been about one year since the last time i`ve been to a cinema.
What happens down here (and in most places in Europe and Asia) is that American movies take a little time to get to our cinemas.
It is much easier to a guy like me to copy a DVDRip over the internet than to go to a cinema over here. It takes 5 hours to get a movie in my place. And believe me, LOTS of people do it around here.
I personaly think you are right when talking about the US environment BUT YOU COMPLETETLY FORGOT TO THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY MPAA IS LOSING ELSE WHERE WITH AMERICAN MOVIES.
Just open your mind and think WHY those guys are trying to suit people over seas. Why they are trying to suit little Juans, Michaels, Rodrigos, Yoshinobus, etc over seas.
What really pisses me off is the inequality between countries when it comes to buying CD/DVD’s. Same crap, higher price. Vinyl records used to cost (insert currency here) 5, as did crappy easy to break tapes. CD’s come along and you’re talking (insert currency here) 10 or more. Roughly double the price, and that is on top of the double price we have to pay over US customers. Same concept goes for Video Tapes and DVD’s, albeit with a higher price.
The other funny thing is that Sony also make CD/DVD burners and the media for burning stuff on. Plus players. Even mp3 players, didn’t they diss mp3’s when they came out?
At the end of the day, this is all about control and pure unadulterated greed.
These “Robber Barons” of the 21st century are merely trying to cash in and control yet another potential market. It’s not about money they are losing, it is about even more money they think they could be making by exploiting end users.
Look at the latest rip off the industry has cooked up: mp3 ringtones, highly cut down soundbytes and look at the profit margin, relatively no cost production and over 99.9% profit.
as far as commercials in movies goes, its not as bad as sitting in your local regal cinemas (if anyone has one) and watching “The 20”. 20 commercials, previews, and music videos and theeeen, watching the half dozen or more movie trailers…
Well, the explanation has nothing to do with losing money or any rational reason. See the article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-11-05-glickman_x.htm
The new MPAA president, Dan Glickman, relates how he decided to start lawsuits:
“My son Jon was executive producer of the recent film Mr. 3000. A few days after the film was released, a member of my staff found it being sold as a DVD just a few blocks from our offices. I called my son to give him the bad news, and he told me this is happening to all the current films. And then he said, “And what are you going to do about it, Dad?”
So basically you have a powerful, clueless MPAA head satisfying his whiny, spoiled son. I suppose its too much to hope for that Dan would simply slap his son and tell him not to make terrible movies if he doesn’t want them to fail.
The studios aren’t particularly interested in p2p piracy per se; what they want is to retain control of the distribution.
Their aim is to destroy any claims to legitimacy p2p companies may have and run them out of town- then they’ll move in, mop up and open up shop.
We’ll use Universal Studios eMule client and be told it’s “your internet ticket to the magic of the movies” or some such bull.
Britney and Madonna, et al, will be wheeled out to tell us what a wonderful opportunity this represents for artists everywhere.
Shades of George Orwell, except Big Brother will be Big Media, not government – though who will be able to tell the difference?
Oh, yes – Merry Xmas from me, before Warner Bros or Amazon patents that, too.
It’s all just a circle. Prices go up and some people stop going to the theatre, because of the less money income they raise the prices again, and more people stay at home, etc. etc. Their greed has gotten them where they are today. When you go to the toilet in a theatre, you could be missing the best part of the film, at home you just press Still. You can smoke at home, you can yell at home, you can curse at home, you can do whatever you like at home and safe lots of money by doing so. So what’s so great on a theatre, the big screen, i can’t even see what happens on the left side of it when my eyes are on the right. The loss of money isn’t caused by the internet or DVD copies made at home (go back to the start of this text)…………
I always come to the theater late now to miss the commercials on purpose. The theaters are never full anymore like they used to be so its always easy to still get a seat.
Only on rare occasions of movies I must see on the big screen.
You got it Justin. The thing is, I think that smaller films are hurt by all this, since the movies for which I tend to fork over the bucks at the theater are the “event” movies. If it’s a comedy, drama, independent, etc., I just wait for the DVD, rent it online, kick back the recliner and watch it in surround sound on my 52″ HDTV.
If I ever get a 60″ model I may pass on all but the movies I’ve been anticipating most, which would be no more than 3 or 4 per year.
Vic
Screen Rant is right. The last film I saw in the theater, there were at least a half-dozen commercials before another half-dozen trailers. Now I love trailers, and it makes sense to advertize for movies before a movie, but Levis Jeans and General Motors vehicles? Who the heck are they kidding? I remember the first movie I saw where there were commercials. It was The Truman Show and it was a Coca-Cola commercial. I turned to my brother and commented on it.
The worst part is, they’re usually not even big budget, high profile, Super Bowl caliber commercials. They’re the same freaking commercials we see on TV! Sometimes they’re longer, or in widescreen, but usually they’re nothing you can see during Must See TV.
I’ve all but stopped going to movies in the theater between commercials, cell phones and prices. Only on rare occasions of movies I must see on the big screen.
I already like this topic, I’d rather not say so much for I am just happy reading post after post after post.
Keep it up guys!
This may ramble a bit, but I’m trying to make a point…
Anyone remember the origins of cable TV? You paid for the service and in exchange did not have to watch the commercials which subsidised “free” TV. The thing is, those in power in the entertainment industry will push the public (cattle) bit by bit to accept things until after a while we take them as given.
Anyone remember when in movies they went out of their way to NOT show a product’s brand name? How about when studios had to pay a company if they DID want to show a product for whatever reason? I don’t know when the shift happened as these things tend to be gradual, but now we have:
– The privilege of paying for cable/satellite and STILL having to watch commercials.
– Blatant product placement in movies that is (to me) completely distracting and takes me out of the movie. Said product placement VERY profitable for the studio.
– Commercials shown before movies. Not even one or two (which is how it started), but I’ve sat through as many as EIGHT!!! That’s after paying $9.50 for a ticket.
Then that sappy-assed commercial comes on talking about piracy, and my first reaction is to yell out “kiss my ass”.
If I have to pay $9.50 for a ticket I shouldn’t be subjected to advertising before or during the movie. If they ARE advertising, the ticket price should be discounted to reflect that there are commercials. But, as some have stated, as long as we continue to show up we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Tell you what, I don’t go out to see NEARLY as many movies as I might otherwise any more. Long live Netflix.
Vic
I agree with Bombadil for the most part about movie star’s salaries. Actors take what they are offered. But the big salaried actors (and for some I use that term generously) also have a team that negotiates the big money. Same as sports figured. But, I certainly would make a movie solely based on the check (esp. for $20 million), irregardless of the artistic/entertainment value I saw in it. The problem is that the actual product and customer are the last to be considered. The way things are these days, I am so much more likely to rent a DVD because it is cheaper and the experience is better at home. Even buying a DVD is cheaper than a Saturday night date to the movies. Unless it is a movie that is an absolute must see on the big screen, I can wait the 4 months until it hits the shelves. Oh, and personally, I have never downloaded a movie, but I see it being much like music downloads: Try it before you buy it or try it even though you never would buy it.
We can just drop this whole greed issue. If you boss came up to you and offereed to double your salary would you turn it down? Heck No! If the studios want to pay Roberts 20 million than she should take every penny of it and not feel one bit sorry. I would take and I am willing to be if any of use were in the same place, so would we.
And yes to a certain extent it is the viewers fault. I or we can complain all we want, but as long as we are willing to complain during the week on this here fine blog and then go drop the cash on the weekends why shouldn’t they get us. Movies are not a neccesity, I would like to think they are, but they aren’t. Then you get people who are so broken up over the price of movies that they go more than once.
A semi-decent example is sports. Why is it that no player has gotten 20 mill a year since A-Rod? Because it handicapped the team and the return wasn’t there. Why is hockey on strike? Players want more money, and the amount of money owners bring in from tickets and merchandising doesn’t justify it. It is simple economics. If the public is willing to put up with it, then why should they stop? It isn’t even remotely fair to make it a moral issue and say the actor or studio should take less money just because we don’t like it. With the speed that DVDs come out nowadays, you only have to wait a few months and you can see the movie for 5 bucks at your local video chain. Nobody is forcing anybody to pay outrageous prices.
Now gas that is a whole other story.
I hope Richard and I are not scaring other people out of commenting. This is just the kind of thing that keeps a blog fun. This and of course having your comments referred to on The Movie Blog Audio Edition Vol 6. Woo Hoo!
Bombadil. Just a few thoughts here.
Exactly. Theatre owners aren’t getting enough money from the ticket sales and have to sell additionals to make the money. The article also said that very thing with owners saying that was their prime money maker – they’re being forced to it.
True, we should vote with our feet, I am, totally. However it does not excuse the greed of some of the major stars. They can take less money as much as I can not go to the cinema. Are we saying it’s the viewers fault for going, but the actors can take 20 million a picture without any issue? No, we can both make a difference. Why don’t the Studios just offer them less money?
False advertising is illegal in the UK, and pressed hard enough I can walk into a shop and quote the Sales of Goods Act (Revised) under the sections “Goods must be fit for purpose” and “sold as described”. That last section refers to the description from the sellers. In the case of movies it is their advertising that is the issue, not movie sites or pundits discussions, the actual material used to sell the movie. Here, that is directly attributable to the movie and the seller themselves. It is a direct correlation, and is made so by law. Difficult to prove in the case of a movie though, since entertainment is sibjective, however I have managed to get my money back once for this very reason.
Agree with your second last paragraph. I am doing all of those things. However that again does not excuse them for one second. That’s the arguement of people who stand by and watch things happen all the while saying “well it wasn’t me, I had nothing to do with it, I didn’t get involved”. Many things are coming to mind for that very example, but most are political based so I shan’t voice them.
I don’t think they’re excused one little bit. I do agree that voting with our feet would work, but realistically a small percentage will stop going and prices will go up to cover that drop, and smaller cinemas will go out of business. There would be a huge knock on effect in the industry as many, many companies would be hit with cost cutting exercises until the industry finally lowered prices, if in fact they did.
I think they should look, as John said, to the Music Industry model now and start doing something about it. Work with the newer ways of the world, not against them.
David, love the tiered pricing system, that would work a treat. I’ve said before but one of our local multiplexes reduces prices to ¬£3.95 on a Tuesday, previews are Wednesday\Thursday with releases Friday, so they find that the quiet run down time after the rush.
Right I’ll stop hogging the comments and let everyone else come in!
theres actually some rather good logical points to whats being said here. surprised i havent seen them before…
“With DVD burners it’s possible to copy a DVD. Oh wait a minute… we’ve been able to do that easily for the last 20 years… it’s called a VCR! That didn’t seem to slow down the industry.”
I’ve been saying this for years, especially in the case of music. I remember years ago copying my friend’s “Weird Al” cassette on my dad’s 2-deck cassette recorder. Why is it the record and movie companies aren’t suing the companies that make DVD and CD burners, and 2-deck video and audio cassette recorders? They’d make a ton more money off of actual companies than they ever could off of average, blue-collar Joe Individual.
Furthermore, I live in a military area. Many of the soldiers stationed in this area ship out to places like Afghanistan where DVD bootlegs are huge, and sometimes very professionally done. Most are comparable in quality to the official releases. Soldiers in these areas (who are supposed to be fighting for the good of America) will buy bootleg DVDs at $5 a piece and ship them back to their families. Why doesn’t the MPAA sue them? They’re supposed to be protecting our contry, not financially raping it.
I personally discourage patronizing bootlegs. I’ve never bought one, nor downloaded one. Not as much because of the legal reasons, though that is certainly a deterrent, but mostly because of the crap quality of most of them. I have a pretty nice TV and a 600W Dolby Digital and DTS surround sound system; and my parents whom I visit frequently have a 52″ widescreen HDTV and a Bose surround sound system (one of the reasons I DO visit them frequently). In many ways my home theater experience is better than an actual theater experience, so why would I want to ruin that with a fuzzy, jumpy picture and mono sound?
Finally, I would like to say that David’s idea of a tiered pricing method would be a big draw as well. Also, I’d like to take it a step furthur. Most theaters charge you a single rate no matter what theater you’re in. So you could pay $7 for a stadium style theater with digital projection, a 7:3 screen and DTS digital surround sound, or you could pay $7 to see the same movie at the same mulitplex in a little shoebox sized theater with a misaligned film projection that pops and crackles, a 16:9 screen and mono sound. When I see a movie I wanna get what I pay for. Most people don’t care what the quality of the theater is, so they’ll pay the cheaper rate for the crappier quality. That will leave more seats for the people who DO care and are willing to pay for the better quality.
Well, I think this rant has gone on for long enough now. I hope someone actually reads it.
Take a look at this response from The Pirate Bays lawyers after a threat from DreamWorks. In Sweden, this is still legal.
http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt
Here’s the thing: The movie going experience has steadily gone down hill over the years as home theaters have become better and more affordable. Tickets are ridiculously expensive as is the food. I can have a bunch of friends over for a newly released DVD, make a ton of popcorn, and pour liters of soft drinks, and it still be cheaper than going by myself on a Saturday night. To get people back into the theaters, there has to be a drop in price, but also make going to the movies less of an ordeal. Block cell phone signals, have ushers that will shut loud people up, get the screens back to being humongous, and better insulate the theaters from others that have loud noises like explosions and crashes.
One way they can drop prices right off are quite paying people $20 million dollars a movie. Instead pay the big names a couple million and profit points; They can take a bit of risk along with the studios. Another way is to pay for a good script and fresh faces, it comes much cheaper than paying for a hack writer and a big name performer who cannot act. Or a singer who wants to “act.” Movies that cost less have much better chance of making a profit. Or they could have a pricing tier, like a DVD rental store (e.g. Blockbuster). New movies could cost more than other that have been out for two weeks. Tickets here are around $8.00, after two weeks, they could drop to $4.00.
While I agree with the majority of the article I don’t buy the update about being cheated by the MPAA. First off, I don’t beleive food prices have anything to do with the MPAA. You just recently had a post about theaters raising prices of food, because they don’t see much first week ticket sale money.
Secondly, Julia Roberts gets 20 million a movie, because we go and see her movies and they open to 50 million, so again not their fault. If you don’t want her to make that much stop watching her films. If Hollywood knows they will make their 20 mil back ten fold why not pay it. It is the same in any business, just bigger numbers.
Thirdly, false advertising on bad moives is also a cop out. By now everybody knows that every film pays some no name movie critic from some small school paper in Iowa to put a praise on their movie. There are thousands of sites, this one included, that will tell you how good a movie is. I have read a ton of reviews telling my how bad Blade:Trintiy is, but I am still going to go see it. Once, I know how bad it is, can I blame it on Hollywood? Don’t think so.
While, the movie industry is hypocritical in their claims to be loosing money, they are in no way cheating us. If you think paying 13.50 is too much for a ticket, stop going. If you think 3 bucks is too much for a coke, stop buying them. If you are upset about crap movies having fantastic claims attached to them, do some research. This is a business and their job is to make money. You know going in the cost and the chance you might not like the movie. For instance, I didn’t care for Mystic River, but there was a ton raving pub for it, so when I saw it and was disappointed can I say I was cheated by false advertising? We as consumers need to take some responsibility.
That said the MPAA still sucks!
Good post John. It’s strange, on one hand the Movie Industry is getting laid into the individuals, and on the other they are setting up movies online. Crazy.
Totally agree with all your points. The movies I have downloaded are ones that I would not go and see in the Cinema (and that’s been only three) and since I’m such a big home cinema buff I can’t abide the poor quality, and I even downloaded DVD burns, not handheld copies.
There is no way I’d even consider downloading and watching movies as a normality, just now and again on a whim, or perhaps to catch a new far eastern movie which won’t be released in my local cinema, and if it’s good then it’s a DVD purchase for sure.
There’s no way I would consider that I’ve ever cheated the movie industry out of money, however they’ve more than cheated enough out of me with their false advertising for bad movies, poor quality of the film stock being shown, bad cinema setup causing poor quality, bad food that cost an arm and a leg (and probably is actually an arm or a leg since it’s always hotdogs for me!), creation of regionalised DVD system, etc.
On the subject of DVD Burners, there’s a law suit against the makers of a new DVD Burner right now. I can’t remember all the details and I’ll try and hunt it down, but it makes it easy for someone at home to burn copies of DVD’s and the industry is going mad and trying to stop the unit being manufactured.
They have obviously forgotten the fact that you are allowed to create a backup copy of any media as long as it is solely for a backup. Okay…I’ll give them that one!