EW Article: PSA in theaters to not pirate? (1 Viewer)

Ted Lee · May 19, 2003

now, last time i checked, we had to pay to get into the movie theaters.

okay, i read in the apr 18th issue of Entertainment Weekly an article that kind of got my goat. essentially, the hollywood powers that be are going to be putting up a PSA in the movie theaters to tell people not to pirate movies.

what's even funnier is they have high-profile celebrities (the article mentions ben affleck) doing the talking. now i know they're going for the high profile celebs to "make an impact" but i can't help but think most people are going to go, "yeah, like you need money." to be fair, ben does mention all the people involved in making a movie...not just the high profile stars.

also, another kicker is a quote from jack valenti (mpaa president) about (i'm paraphrasing) the "working stiffs who only make $75,000 to $100,000 a year". (i wish...)

the author of the article jokes about how that makes him want to figure out a way to pirate stuff from jack's personal house.

personally, i'm right beside him.

John_Berger · May 19, 2003

Oh, for crying out loud. Yeah, a PSA in the beginning of a movie that you just paid money to see is really going to stop the knucklehead in the back with the camcorder who can easily edit out the PSA before he puts it on Usenet.

the "working stiffs who have only make $75,000 to $100,000 a year". (i wish...)

Then I guess that most of us are -- what -- "working bendables"?

Click to expand...

Malcolm R · May 19, 2003

Jack Valenti must be from another dimension, because he certainly knows nothing about reality in this one. :rolleyes

Brian Lawrence · May 19, 2003

Lame Lame Lame!!!

Is it not bad enough that we have to sit through multiple FBI warnings and Running Commentary disclaimers in 3 different languages when we pop a dvd in the player.

Is it not bad enough that we now have to sit through 15-20 minutes of Pepsi ads at the theater?

Nothing makes people happier than having someone tell them not to so something that they never intended to do in the first place. :rolleyes

Ted Lee · May 20, 2003

yeah, this really kills me. i guess i could see this type of stuff on a dvd or vhs tape, but *not* at the flippin' movies where i just paid nine bucks to get in and possibly even more money buyin' their food.

i just know people are gonna roll their eyes when they see this...

MickeS · May 20, 2003

Now now, I'm sure the pirates never realized that they were doing something wrong in the eyes of the Hollywood studios. I think this announcement can open their eyes to the fact that many people in showbiz only make 1/1000 of what Ben Affleck is making, and that the best way to correct that is obviously to make sure that nobody sees a movie for free.

If this goes on to be even more widespread, we might even see Ben Affleck himself suffer. Would you want to be the one responsible if he has to work for just a few million dollars per movie?

/Mike

Dan Rudolph · May 20, 2003

Most of those people don't have 1/1000th the box office draw of Ben Affleck. Besides, he worked his way to the top. Don't be hatin'.

Ted Lee · May 20, 2003

i think you're missing the point dan. i would never begrudge someone their successes.

the problem is they're telling an audience of people who paid their money not to pirate. having a high-profile celebrity (whoever that may be) doesn't help reinforce that point. all the audience sees is a a movie star worth a lot of money telling them not to steal.

it doesn't work...

MickeS · May 20, 2003

What Ted say. Don't put a guy worth $50 million dollars onscreen to tell me that I need to look out for the ones who make $30K a year. He is in a better position to do something for them than I am, and don't forget that he's there because they only make $30K a year, and because I have paid to see him.

If they really wanted to make an impact, put a bunch of nonames on the screen and show us that they will benefit from less piracy. Sadly, I don't think they will.

Dan Rudolph · May 20, 2003

Okay, that's what I get for not reading very closely. Put Joe extra up there. That will show peopel who needs money.

Seth Paxton · May 20, 2003

Following Mike's sentiments this really reminds me of Microsoft software with "Please do not make illegal copies" printed on the CD.

Who is that message for? If you ask nicely they won't? The pirates didn't realize that some copying might be illegal?

Saying that piracy is illegal is one thing, just getting the word out to anyone that wants to plead ignorance, but asking people who know what they are doing to "please don't".

And in this case throwing 75K-100K as a "working stiff" salary in our faces sure as hell is not going to go over too well. If that's what gaffer and best boy pay, then maybe I should move to LA after all. Sounds like Jack is in serious need of a reality check.

Jason Harbaugh · Sep 26, 2003

I'm sure people have started to see the new PSA being played before most movies. It has a set painter giving his 'tear jerker' speech. :rolleyes

He starts out by saying that piracy doesn't really hurt the producers or the execs, but it does hurt me, the little guy. Yada yada yada, goes on to say that he is lucky to put together 12 straight months of work. Then up pops, the don't pirate movies banner.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the tech crew, set painter included, get paid based on how much the movie makes. They do their job, get paid, and they are done with it. So how does piracy hurt them? The only way I could see it is if the studio they work for decides to stop making movies because of piracy, which ain't gonna happen. The only people piracy hurts are the ones that are keeping the box office receipts, and even then I think it is miniscule at best, at least in the U.S.

Of course, the worst part of the PSA that has already been discussed here, is that they are playing it front of an audience that just spent ~$9 each to see this movie. Talk about rubbing salt in our eyes. Hasn't the MPAA learned anything from the RIAA fiasco?

When it showed before the showing of Underworld I loudly booed it, and not to my surprise I wasn't the only one as others joined in.

Ted Lee · Sep 26, 2003

When it showed before the showing of Underworld I loudly booed it, and not to my surprise I wasn't the only one as others joined in.

right on!

it's just plain stupid to show these in the movies...

Click to expand...

Adam_S · Sep 26, 2003

So how does piracy hurt them?

Because it would be absolutely impossible to shave even ten thousand dollars off the salary of an executive or big name, but they're more than happy to shave some off all of the crews' salaries. Got to cut costs somewhere, but we must be reasonable, those 'working stiff' executives could never survive on a few hundred thousand a year!

BTW I wonder how much of a tax writeoff the movie and recording studios take each year for piracy 'losses'?

Adam

Click to expand...

Dan Rudolph · Sep 26, 2003

Because lower profits mean fewer movies get made or less money gets spent, menaing fewer jobs for everyone.

Jason Harbaugh · Sep 26, 2003

Because lower profits mean fewer movies get made or less money gets spent

That makes sense, except, their profits have gone up (as a whole) every year since 1992. And that isn't just from inflation, total tickets sold have also consistently gone up each year with the exception of a dip in 1999 and 2000. The number of wide releases each year has also been around the same. So it doesn't look like fewer movies are being made, nor lower profits, and the average cost for a movie has been higher than ever.

So what you said would be reality if it were true. It clearly isn't. I believe that it is a bigger problem in certain foreign markets where they sell thousands of copies of movies on the streets, but not in the US. Digital piracy is just the word of the day and an easy scapegoat for the failure of any movie. I wonder how many people downloaded Gigli vs POTC?

As someone that spends literally thousands of dollars on movie tickets and the resulting dvd's each year, I think that 'cry me a river' PSA is pure bullsh*t and insulting to be shown before a movie that I paid for. Why don't they just stick it on websites or have a guy wear a sandwich board on the corner of a street that has a guy selling the bootleg copy of a movie?

All stats taken from boxofficemojo.

Click to expand...

Steve_Tk · Sep 26, 2003

I've already seen this. The big celebs are not the main people talking on it. They have camera men, wire guys, technicians all sorts of people talking most of the time. I forget where I saw this though...

Adam Lenhardt · Sep 26, 2003

Yeah, it's bullshit. I can understand commericals on TV, print, or radio. But in front of the product people have PAID to see (whether it be in theaters or on Video/DVD), that's just plain insulting your patrons. The only people who would possibly be moved by these commercials are the people who are going to see them on their bootleg VCD.

Dan Rudolph · Sep 26, 2003

Profits are down from what they potentially would have been, not what they were last year.

They're using small-timers because people don't care if a big starloses money. They have plenty left. A continuity supervisor trying to pay her way through college is much more moving.

These are presumably meant to influence people who brought in a camcorder, but I agree they are much more meaningful on tv. People who have already paid to see the movie aren't the main ones you need to worry about.

Derek Miner · Sep 27, 2003

The whole anti-piracy campaign is ridiculously misguided at best. First of all, they are attempting to sway the opinions of a public that has a very nebulous conept of copyright. The number of people who will get something from the message is slim. Second, the idea of having such a campaign ignores the core problem - there is a discrepancy between the market price and perceived value of the goods. I guess this is a stronger argument with music, where CDs are generally considered highly overpriced, but I think it applies in all cases. Either studios need to find a way to make moviegoing more affordable so people would rather spend their money over copying or downloading a movie, or they need to find some way to add value to the moviegoing experience.

Incidentally, every movie I've ever watched on bootleg video, I've also paid money to see in a theater. I think I've known maybe two people who downloaded movies instead of paying to see them in a theater or rent them. I don't see film piracy becoming a bigger issue very soon, and it's hardly an epidemic as it is currently.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

EW Article: PSA in *theaters* to not pirate? (1 Viewer)

Screenwriter

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Forum statistics

EW Article: PSA in theaters to not pirate? (1 Viewer)