Something I pondered just now...

[Nilfennasion]

The film industry is always whining about how much money it loses because of piracy, but that brings me to wonder about the stuff we don't pirate.

In this example, I have a disc, I won't say how legal it is, of a film called It's The Rage. Sophomoric and hackneyed doesn't even begin to describe it. It's like a version of Twenty Bucks with guns. The only problem being that in the microverse of the makers' agenda, a sane gun owner does not exist, and one that can exercise responsibility over themselves is akin to a mermaid. I wouldn't have this film at all except for the simple fact that one of the starring roles is played by a wonderful woman by the name of Anna Paquin.

Assuming for a second that I copied this disc illegally (remember, I am not saying I did), you have to wonder why. Is it because I simply crave footage of one of its stars? Well, yeah, but that leaves the interesting question. What of The 25th Hour, a film so boring and ponderous (directed by Spike Lee, not coincidentally) that I got up and walked away from it in the middle of a scene with a tattooed Anna.

To borrow a quote from one of my favourite pages, it's one thing when you don't think something is worth paying money for. When you don't think it is worth the bandwidth or copying time, that's another matter entirely. I wonder if the studio is ever going to whine that piracy has diminished revenue returns on The 25th Hour? I hope they do, because I have news for them that I think they need to hear.

[Capmaster]

In your defense, I too would be game to acquiring a movie even if it's only redeeming quality is that Anna is in it

[Culley]

All this piracy stuff has me a bit skeptical.

All in all, I think a lot of piracy has to do with the sub-standard movies which Hollywood produces. Almost every movie script is a sequel, a remake, or based on a book. Honestly, about the only time I go to a movie, is if I hit a drive-in, and that's for nostaliga more than anything. I can honestly say that I've been to the cinemas maybe 5 times in the past five years. I just don't feel good about paying $8.75 for a movie. There are too many "big budget" films out there driving the prices up making it harder for lower budget films to get a screen in a cinema.

But, it also might be a result of the convenience of the Internet. If you can stay at home and DL a movie, it saves you the time and trouble of having to go to the Cinemas or video store.

Heck, if the Movie industry wanted to make some of their money back, they should stream films into peoples homes. It wouldn't stop piracy, but I'm sure it would make people some money!

[Capmaster]

I agree about the cinemas being obscenely expensive. It used to be that you could take the whole family out for a movie and popcorn and it's be ten bucks. The last time we went to a theater was for Return of the King, and for four of us it set me back 100 bucks! I don't want to see a movie that bad ...they're not good enough for that kind of money

My wife and I usually only go to see the movies we can't wait for. Eventually they all turn up on DirecTV Pay per view, but movies like all the Star Trek TNG movies, Terminator 2 and 3, a few other must-see movies, then we'll go. My boys go more often, but then they go when they get a matinee rate too.

[Culley]

I worked for an Independent record store from about 1997-2000. It was a store that had been around for about 30+ years and had seen a lot of changes.

When places like Best Buy and Walmart came into town the record store really began to struggle, because those places began selling movies and CDs $4 or $5 cheaper.

Walmart and Best Buy could afford to sell movies and discs that cheap, because they made up for it in other merchandise. There was no way we could afford to go that low. Walmart and Best Buy were selling stuff for our "cost price" and sometimes even lower!

So, the record store had to start offering things that these Big Businesses didn't. Our T-shirts and novelty items just weren't cutting it. And, in the mid to late 90s, our special orders were being lost to online businesses like Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

One approach was to sell things early. We'd get a shipment of New Releases on Friday or Saturday that were set to go On Sale Tuesday, but we'd sell them over the weekend. People would come in and pay our prices, because they were getting it early.

Another approach was to sell bootlegs of concerts and eventually, yes, bootlegs of movies either before or while they were in theaters.

Now, I'm not trying to justify any of this, simply because I think that's an unintersting topic. The thing I am saying, though, is that some piracy is a result of small business owners competing with Big Business.

[Snakebyte1]

Never underestimate greed. If they (the industry) believe they are missing out on a buck, then they'll do whatever it takes to get that buck, even if in the end it really costs them $2.00.

The whole entertainment industry in pulling in billions annually, but all we hear about is the "lost revenue from pirating" bla bla bla. I agree that pirating does cost them revenue, just like shop lifting costs a store revenue, but you need to have a positive response. I mean, you could stop a lot of shop lifters by having each customer searched before leaving a store, but then how many people would go to a store if they have to go through a full body cavity search?? - Ok some sickies would but that's another issue.

They are doing everything they can to stop users from using CDs and DVDs on computer by putting in so-called protection schemes etc, but don't they realize that the trend is now to have PC based Entertainment Systems?? That's the future and that's where they will get their money from. If I can't play the stuff then why should I even consider buying it? So they stop the pirating AND the legit purchases as well.

And the costs of CDs and DVDs is too high which reduces the legit purchases. I used to buy about 1 CD a week, but I haven't bought any for at least 4 years now. The last one I bought was $18 Cdn, from a known artist and it sucked. I stopped buying and just listened to what I had and the radio. Soon I found I had other uses for the money I used to spend and I don't even think about buying CDs anymore. Similarly, I almost passed out when I last went to a movie and was charged $14.50. We used to go to the movies as a group maybe once a month, but now its only 2 or 3 times a year and it must be a visually spectacular movie at that. And once you make a few changes to your routine you don't even miss it, you start doing new things and they become routine. Even if prices did fall dramatically I doubt I'd go back to buying CDs again.

The entire entertainment industry is so badly managed. They pay artists and actors mega bucks upfront, then spend mega bucks on promotion, so they have to charge through the nose just to recoup those expenses. In the end all those expenses end up in the price the end consumer has to bear. If the product sucks (like most seem to) then they won't make much of a profit, so they add those loses to the prices of other albums/movies. I believe a band or actors should profit based on the success of their work. If a movie or album bombs then they shouldn't get much. How much did "Bennifer" get for Gigli?? If its a blockbuster success then they should. Not only would this encourage higher quality work, but would also lower retail prices and that would reduce pirating.

Next, if they went after the larger commercial pirating outfits rather than the average Joe doing a simple backup they would not be alienating and enraging the very people they expect to BUY their products. Not a great marketting strategy to threaten and sue your customer base "You downloaded an MP3 so we will sue you - oh and don't forget to buy the latest $20 CD" and "You made a backup so you are a criminal but don't forget to buy another $20+ movie from us." They also expect a person to buy a CD copy for the car, and buy the same as an MP3 for your portable, and if you damage it, well, buy another one.

If the profits are declining, yes, some of it is from pirating, but how much of it could very well be the results of their tactics? More and more people will just say to hell with it and instead of buying music or a video will go and read a book (until they start to bitch about copyright on that too!!) or do something else. Entertainment is a luxury that people can, if they choose, do without. For every penny they save by cracking down on pirates, how much will the lose from pissing consumers off.

They're destroying themselves without even knowing it. Pathetic.


Opps, didn't mean to ramble on so much

[Culley]

I mean, you could stop a lot of shop lifters by having each customer searched before leaving a store, but then how many people would go to a store if they have to go through a full body cavity search?? - Ok some sickies would but that's another issue.

Sign me up! :P

[DereX888]

Yes I agree with almost everything what was written here about corporate greed, studios, hollywood etc etc.

However lets not forget one thing: it is many of YOU who is partially pushing the studios (and hollywood in general) to do it, since most of Americans own stock or other mutual funds shares related to them. Without going into details in example friend of mine just got rid of some 'tech fund' because it "didn't deliver" and profit was too small. Well, guess what - this particular mutual fund was heavily involved in hollywood-related investments. By getting rid of it my friend send clear message that they dont make enough money and he won'tinvest in them. Yet he is one of those who also complaints about the whole industry's greed on many boards, including this one... (yes Kyle, Im talking about you!)
Kinda Dr.Jeckyll & Mr.Hyde situation IMHO.

[Snakebyte1]

Its not so much about the desire to make money, or even to make LOTS of money, after all, companies are in business to make money. And the better companies do at making money the better the overall economy becomes and, usually, the better off everyone is, as pointed out that most people have mutual funds and pensions that contain these stocks.

But what irks me is the incredibly poor management overall. Its irresponsible. Each year revenue from movie tickets goes up but the number of people attending goes down. Considering the population is always going up, it says something. All the profit increase was purely price increases. And we all know that that trend cannot continue. But they still raise the prices, so fewer people will go. At some point you reach a point where for every dollor you increase the price you will lose $1 or more. This can be applied to CD sales and DVD sales as well.

The technology sector is an example of self-destruction. How much venture capital was wasted. Startups spent millions, paid sick salaries. We all knew it couldn't stay at that level. Responsible companies would have invested their money more wisely and been prepared. Instead it all went down the toilet - but it didn't have to be as bad as it was.

If the Entertainment Industry was better managed they hardly notice any loss from priracy and their customers would not hate them. I also question the values they assign to it. Its almost like they figure that all 6 Billion people on the planet will buy every DVD and CD they put out, so if sales are less that 6B then the rest must be pirated. Ya, sure.

Anyway, I hold no grudge against them trying to make as much money as they can - but its HOW they go about doing it. If they doing it right they make loads and everyone is happy. If they continue on as they are they will lose money and no one will be happy.

[TheFamilyMan]

The basic question about movie piracy:

What percentage of the people who pirate movies would pay for it if paying was the only way they could have access to it?

I'm sure it's not 0%, but definitately not greater than 20%. This undeterminable fact alone clouds the true loss due to piracy. IMHO, what really pisses the movie industry off is that "pirates" are getting their product without the industry getting any money from them. But, going back to the above question: if all pirating stopped, would their revenues skyrocket due to the pirates rushing to the stores and threatres? Definately not. IMHO all this is really driven by "hard feelings" running amok within the movie industry (you've got something from me that you did not pay for!) .

I'm not defending media piracy. Personnally I'm appalled by it and am quick to jump on others I know that are involved in it. The appeal of piracy is that is so easy, quick and usually free. Media piracy is about social morals: just because you can do something, does it mean you should?

[Nilfennasion]

What percentage of the people who pirate movies would pay for it if paying was the only way they could have access to it?

That's my entire point. The number of people who were burned when paying was the only way to access some of this media is very high, and it is coming back to bite the MPAA. I should know, I became one of them many, many times.

As I said, there are some actors who can make an otherwise awful film watchable. But even they cannot make such a film watchable enough enough to justify the exorbitant prices being charged. I got It's The Rage by reviewing it, and I still felt ripped off at the end of it. Once Anna's character was killed off, I even turned the whole thing off on subsequent viewings. It is also a case of where the audio commentary can be the film's worst enemy. The director honestly thought he was making a social statement instead of a piece of visual whining.

I'm not saying that piracy is right, or that we should pirate everything, but it does send a clear message to Hollywood that they still don't seem to get. Maybe if they stopped spending $100mil on a single film and actually did something creative, or innovative, they might be losing less money to piracy or indifference.