Arrrrgh...Movie Piracy: A Big Deal? (1 Viewer)

[Phil Florian]

That is what I have heard, but again it isn't like there are multiplexes in all parts of Asia that people will have access to. I think they need to jump on a bandwagon for newer methods for film distribution and use the online forum as people are already doing. This is like people who made horse drawn carriages getting pissed because people were using cars and ignoring the horse. Did the movie industry make as big a deal of this with TiVo, VCR's and other recording methods? I could pay 4 bucks to get on pay per view a newly released movie, put in on a tape and sell it in the streets. Or is the industry only worried about movies in the theatres? I guess the genie is out of the bottle and it won't go back in. Doing sob ads that do little to engender sympathy just seems a waste. And as noted above, it adds more time to the "pre-show" that now makes being on time for a movie simply an exercise in getting decent seats, not missing anything. Sheesh.

Phil

 

[Malcolm R]

Gee, I wonder why?

$10 per person for the priveledge of walking on filthy, sticky floors to get to your uncomfortable seat in an auditorium that's usually too hot or too cold, then to be forced to watch 20 minutes of advertising commercials before a poor audio/video presentation of an over-hyped Hollywood flick, not to mention the stellar opportunity to buy overpriced food and drink and to stand in line for tickets, stand in line for concessions, stand in line to get into the auditorium, and stand in line for the rest room. And don't forget the total lack of enforcement of any of the theater "rules" such as turning off cell phones, telling patrons to keep quiet, or making people take their feet off the seats in front of them.

I mean, is there anything that could be more fun?

Movie studios and exhibitors are doing everything in their power to drive customers out of theaters, and video piracy is way, waaaaayyy down on the list of issues contributing to this.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Only if you consider litigating all the way to the Supreme Court "a big deal". Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Text of the opinion can be found here.

Of course, once they lost the VCR issue, the studios turned around and discovered that there was money to be made by embracing the technology in question. I don't think there's a similar solution on the horizon with today's piracy issues. But who knows?

M.

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

I agree with the person who pointed out that these people are all paid up front, regardless of box-office take. If the movie tanks, and the producers and studios (or whoever decides such things) try to tell the workers they're gonna get less money on the next production, they can simply go on strike. They're unionized. That's also one of the reasons why Hollywood movie's are so expensive to make. "Don't move that toolbox two inches to the left. That's MY job, pal."

They don't have unions in most of the Asian film industries (not sure about South Korea, which has trade unions), and they don't grossly overpay either the talent or the crew, which certainly keeps costs low, forces people to do far more with far less than Hollywood, albeit partly because of lost revenue due to piracy, of course. It's a vicious circle that will probably never be broken.

Also, a great deal of piracy today - perhaps more than people here realize - is in the form of fully-packaged rips of Asian, European and American DVD releases. Most of the extras are included, and they print up very similar looking sleeves and slipcases to boot. This of course, is more prevalent once the film has already been released on DVD in some part of the world. that way they can include 5.1, DTS, extras, etc. It's really quite shocking how much efforts seems to go into pirated goods these days. If the studios are going after people downloading blurry, tiny, largely crappy versions of films off the internet, they're definitely sniffing in the wrong direction.

Like Malcolm R, I dread going to the movies anymore for every single reason he listed. I used to see a movie almost every week up until about five or six years ago, and even then I couldn't stand the whole process. Now, I'm happy to wait for DVD.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I know I've written two snarky little articles on this very subject at a website I help out. Apparently they're getting their fair share of hits, and the second one probably wouldn't have been written without this forum.

(Language Warning on the following links)

http://www.operationsombrero.com/Art...mpaa031017.htm
http://www.operationsombrero.com/Art...ates031118.htm

Bottom line? You're never going to COMPLETELY stop piracy. Just as society has never, somehow, managed to stop thievery, in all it's incarnations, since the beginning of time. People will steal. And there's a small subsection of society that will ALWAYS steal from people. See: professional movie bootleggers, Enron employees, so on and so on.

But the MPAA and Exhibitor Associations CAN do something to cut the number of stolen movies down SHARPLY, and it's a very, very simple solution that has nothing to do with the internet, or dots on pictures, or fabricating a sob story to beat paying customers over the head with:

Improve your presentation.
lower costs.
take a risk every now and again.

That's it. That's all you'd need to do to take away the spectre of joe sixpack getting on the internet, and downloading a flick. Because people are mostly lazy We appreciate convienience. Which is why 7-Eleven exists. Sure, we could download a movie for "Free" (internet connection costs and price of software not withstanding) but you tell me I can watch a BEAUTIFUL presentation, with great sound, for about 6 bucks at the local theater, 3 bucks for the matinee? I'll do that instead. It's easier. And it's a lot better than staring at my monitor and watching a camcorder copy.

Better that than ruining the movies, lying to us via your actors pretending to be set painters and telling us all you're losing so much money when movies are going to rake in about 10 billion this year.

 

[Kami]

The commercials should be on TV if anything. That's the only way they'd even come close to reaching their core audience. Pirates who are never going to pay for a ticket or a DVD will not be spending $20 in the theater.

Oh yeah, all those techies are unionized and whether or not little joey downloads a camera-in-the-seats version of lord of the rings isn't going to put his job at risk. :rolleyes

No wonder people hate the MPAA and RIAA so much.

 

[Sean Cauley]

I think the argument being made in the promos (the one I've seen most often is the "set painter") is that when expensive movies get pirated, then fewer movies get made, and that these workers won't have as many potential jobs per year, not that they're going to make less when they do work, so this discussion of their pay being protected by the unions is slightly different than the promos' point.

I don't think the promos are effective, or the right way to go, however. The guy in the theater with a camcorder isn't going to go soft-hearted when he sees the set painter (with the costumer wife at home) worrying about where his next job is going to come from, and the camcorder guy isn't even the biggest threat.

I agree with Roger Ebert, who has commented numerous times in the past year or two about the insanity of putting critics through metal detectors and pat-downs to flush out camera-phones, and the horrid enlarged CAPS dots, when most of the piracy the MPAA is worried about actually comes from studio insiders sneaking out quality copies. It's a terrible situation, and you'd think they'd learn from the public-relations pasting the music industry has gotten in recent years to come up with a better solution.

 

[Malcolm R]

It's an argument that doesn't hold water, however. There are exponentially more movies being made now than even 10 years ago.

It used to be just the big Hollywood studios and the three television networks. Now you've still got the big studios, plus the independents, the direct-to-video companies, dozens of cable channels, and several additional networks all making original films and programming.

I'm tired of all these millionaires pretending to cry in their champagne. They should win an Oscar for their whining and teeth-gnashing.

 

[Sean Cauley]

I'm not saying it's a valid argument, just that saying that the pay scale is protected by union rules doesn't answer the particular charge they're laying, whether the charge is warranted or not.

I, for one, don't believe for a second that pirated copies of X2 would ever keep an X-Men 3 from getting made; the movies they think will sell are still going to be made, and made expensively.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

I don't even believe that scenario as in the past 20 years there have been roughly the same # of movies made each year.

2003 had the most movies made in the past 5 years. If we take a look at the number of major releases in the past 2 decades you can see that this is also a non-issue. There have always been high and low points even before 'piracy' of the mass kind was available. It is just part of the business and the economy.

2003 496
2002 467
2001 482
2000 478
1999 461
1998 509
1997 510
1996 471
1995 411
1994 453
1993 462
1992 480
1991 458
1990 410
1989 501
1988 510
1987 509
1986 451
1985 470
1984 536
1983 495
1982 428

 

[StevenFC]

Only in America could someone controlling the purse strings claim poverty while they continue to throw money around like candy. Is the MPAA run by Major League Baseball owners?

Maybe you should clean your own house before you ask me to consider your claim that pirated movies are really the problem. If there's a rash of shoplifting from store shelves, maybe I'll listen. Someone stole something they wanted instead of paying for it.

But I doubt that the relatively small number people buying $5 DVDs on the street or downloading inferior quality movies off the net are going to put the studios in profit heaven if they suddenly decide to start buying official DVDs. Anyway, you can't stop it as long as the copy protection on DVDs is not unbreakable.

 

[Krystian C]

I wonder how much it cost to make the anti-piracy ads? More money taken from the mouths of starving painters, and set people. How pissed would you be if you were a painter and saw yourself being played by some actor for 10 times what you get paid. Which in all likelihood is what happens with these commercial. There is a reason they are not in front of the camera, most of them can't act...

Anyway, on a serious note, these ads piss me off as well. It is bad enough I have to endure the same Honda ad every 60 seconds till the movie starts, and then be treated to (surprise) a full length Honda ad, then perfume, and Coke, and now I am a thief who needs to be talked down to after I just bought my ticket.

They are preaching to the wrong people. We already bought your product, save the lecture. Start airing these commercial on local university campus's.

These ads are like having commercial about car theft playing on a loop at your local car dealers "Bob the car door installer loses $5 everything a Ford is stolen, please buy a car" Piss off, I am here to buy a car not steal one.

And I seriously doubt that anyone sitting in the theater with a camcorder ready to tape a movie will have a life changing moment of clarity when they see that anti-piracy ad. "Oh my, you mean that poor painter is going to go hungry because of me? I think I will pass on making this low quality copy of ROTK and help feed a techie" Hmm I should get that printed on a shirt.....

 

[Steve Kuester]

Sorry, but I don't see what the big deal is with these anti-piracy ads. I saw my first one the other day (I very rarely go to the theater) and it didn't bother me a bit. I didn't feel like I was being talked to like I was a thief.

All this talk about priacy not hurting the studios, movies still getting made, the set painter still gets paid, greedy millionaires... none of this changes the fact that piracy is stealing. Regardless of minimal or no money lost, who gets hurt, etc. It's still stealing, it's wrong.

These ads may not be the best way, but people/studios are just trying to protect their property. And I see nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

I agree, the ads don't annoy me. It's the f'ing anti-piracy dots that piss me off.

 

[ThomasC]

Yes, but it's not going to stop anything AT ALL. Many people have already paid $10 to see a movie theater where some of the seats are broken, the floor is dirty and sticky, the projection is blurry, and the sound is in mono. At least some of us aren't really complaining about the ads, we're complaining about the placement of the ads. It might be more effective if they were placing these "advertisements" on TV. Then, Mr. Poor College Student might be watching TV and he sees this ad with the set painter, and decides that he'll stop the download and just wait for the DVD. Who knows, it might happen.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I think that those ads are THERE to get everyone to make sure that the people sitting next to you doesn't have a camera ready.

Yeah, I know. It is stupid, but I can't blame them for trying.

After being reminded the other day of an actor getting $20. mil for a show, I couldn't help but wonder if the 'piracy' numbers would go down if they took one million of that and hired some unemployed people.

Did they ever do the statistics on how many people have to stop going to the movies if they are out of work?

My soapbox just collapsed, so I'm done.

Glenn

 

[Steve Kuester]

I don't have any facts to back me up on this, but I've got to think the vast majority of people who steal movies do not do it because they don't have 5 bucks to go see a matinee. They do it because they think they're getting even with the big evil movie studios, they do it so they can tell all their friends, they do it because they have nothing else to do. They do it becasue they don't know right from wrong.

I agree that the ads may not be the best answer.

What I do find interesting is that in these types of discussions the topic always seems to float around to a bunch of various excuses and "reasons" why people steal, instead of calling it what it really is.

 

[Dave Bennett]

I saw one of these ads when I went to see the House of Sand and Fog today. Luckily, the only theater that plays this drivel(the piracy ads that is) is my local Loewes which I don't go to that often.
To me it just seems stupid; they're targeting the wrong people. Why subject honest paying theater goers to this stuff? Wouldn't it make more sense to go about it a different way? It was especially funny since I went to a matinee and for this type of movie, I don't think you need to worry about internet piracy. Judging by my quick observation that I was the only person under 40 there(and I heard one lady talking about having to "fiddle with" her computer) I somehow doubt this crowd was a bunch of techies who are downloading movies
Though that reminds me of another thing, in the one with the stuntman, he says all you have to do to download a movie is "push a couple of buttons". From what I know about the phenomenon, it's a lot more complex than that.

 

[Phil Florian]

That doesn't seem to be happening here, though. Sure there is some specualation about the type of people that steal movies, but the bigger point that is being made that the likely group of thieves aren't sitting in the theatres that are playing those ads! They are at home watching their downloaded movies...where I am sure those ads don't creep in.

Since I started the thread, my question was really about is piracy really hurting the industry enough to put these kinds of ads out there (and, as noted, put dots that people can see that potentially ruins a theater-going experience). Finding out why people steal is a part of this discussion.

For example, if ATM machines didn't have pass words and anyone could walk up to it and take what they wanted, banks would go belly up all the time, right? So they make passwords and bank cards so that only certain people have access to their money. My point is that sure it is stealing from ATMs but by golly, there should be more to do than mark the money or put out ads about how taking from ATM machines is bad.

For example, why not get the jump on the market and release DVD's sooner? Why the delay? As some have noted, some of the thieves just want to see a movie they liked (many times the very blockbusters that are raking in the cash) in between the end of the run and the release of the DVD. Would some piracy be cut down if DVD releases, even just barebones ones before a later released special edition, cut into that? Some movies are coming out a lot faster than when I was a youngster but even 3-4 months (or more) is plenty of time for people anxious to just take what is sitting there. Is marking and ruining the theatre experience more worthwhile? Or would jumping the release date to right after the movie is out of theatres a better idea? In the day of home theatres and skyrocketing DVD sales, the theatrical release is almost just paid ad for the eventual DVD (which is where most movies will be seen over time).

That is the bigger discussion to me. Is it really a problem when the ones complaining are richer than ever? And if it is, are ads to their target audience and not target criminals really a way to effectively deal with it or, at best, engender some sympathy?


phil

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I can see people brag when they are the first one to get a new movie up on the net, so releasing the DVD's sooner wouldn't help - but I would still like it!

However, I fear something sinister is going on here. No suits like the RIAA did? Did the publicity about the girl getting sued stop the whole thing? (I knew they had more suits to put out the following month, but I have heard nothing from anyone since then).

Gee, I can't even use the "What are they waiting for, Christmas?" excuse.

So, what is going on?

Glenn