dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1405
share rss forum feed


rachelsfx

join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL

1 recommendation

I agree

The movie industry is one of the few with a huge surplus for the USA. Lost revenue does equal lost tax revenue.

If you watch you should pay to watch it not get a DVD for $5 from some street vendor or download from China.

Movies cost a lot of money to make. $200 million+ for the summer blockbuster. Add another $50-100 million to market.

In this arena, it does cost jobs. It does erode our trade deficit. You want to watch--pay for it like your parents did.


odreian615

join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL

1 edit
I agree to a point but how many jobs do bootlegs make I mean you have the blank media companies the cd/dvd burner makers all reaping benifits from bootlegs
and 140,000 jobs lost is a lie if thats the case it would'nt be anyone working in the music and movie industry since bootlegs been out for over 10 years

Tophet

join:2002-11-30
Verona, PA
reply to rachelsfx
That's not totally correct. Some people would rather download the movie and see if it's any good before going to the movies to see it or buy the DVD. I'm not saying everyone, but some. If hollywood would produce quality work at reasonable prices, then people would pay the money. Plus not to mention the media attention and verbal attention it receives as free advertising from the internet downloads.


rachelsfx

join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
said by Tophet:

That's not totally correct. Some people would rather download the movie and see if it's any good before going to the movies to see it or buy the DVD. I'm not saying everyone, but some. If hollywood would produce quality work at reasonable prices, then people would pay the money. Plus not to mention the media attention and verbal attention it receives as free advertising from the internet downloads.
Okay, that is why we have REVIEWS! People can read them or go to Yahoo and read user reviews. Your argument is pretty ridiculous (watch it for free so I know if I want to pay to see it ).


rachelsfx

join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
reply to odreian615
said by odreian615:

I agree to a point but how many jobs do bootlegs make I mean you have the blank media companies the cd/dvd burner makers all reaping benifits from bootlegs
and 140,000 jobs lost is a lie if thats the case it would'nt be anyone working in the music and movie industry since bootlegs been out for over 10 years
Bootleg is NOT a legal job. Ummm, considering movies are increasingly being made overseas to control costs where do you think those jobs are not going? Some European countries used to make a few movies a year. Now they make them nonstop.

Exactly what does blank DVDs have to do with anything?

Slacker44

join:2001-05-10
Gilbert, AZ
reply to rachelsfx
I would like to see a study on how many people who download movies illegally, would purchase those movies if the didn't download them. I have zero data on this but my guess would be an overwhelming percentage would not purchase these movies if they couldn't download them illegally for free. Does this justify the downloading? No.. but it makes these studies complete crap.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

The movie industry is one of the few with a huge surplus for the USA. Lost revenue does equal lost tax revenue.
I dunno who told you this but it's quite obvious he never worked in this business - studios have very creative accountants, there's no way they would pay more than any medium-sized business.
They always operate with huuge costs, sometimes even losses - on paper.
It's an open secret in Hollyboo for long time.

If you watch you should pay to watch it not get a DVD for $5 from some street vendor or download from China.

Movies cost a lot of money to make. $200 million+ for the summer blockbuster. Add another $50-100 million to market.
LOL, you are the prototype of the average "customer".

That $200M contains couple of new cars for the studios, the stars, the staff etc. The ad agencies overcharge the studios who overcharge them to use their stuff later etc etc - it's a big game, with crazy high numbers but in reality these mega-budgets are usually very heavily pumped on paper.

In this arena, it does cost jobs. It does erode our trade deficit. You want to watch--pay for it like your parents did.
Pure BS, don't buy it, it's the studios crap - apart from the technical staff they mostly operate by hiring freelancers, per-project-basis.


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

Some European countries used to make a few movies a year. Now they make them nonstop.
I think that has more to do with the absolute cookie-cutter CRAP Hollywood has been churning out.

I've found the movies with non-American directors a nice refreshing change.

Capharnaum

join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

In this arena, it does cost jobs. It does erode our trade deficit. You want to watch--pay for it like your parents did.
First, there's no job lost, they're just displaced. People that don't spend "x" billion spend it elsewhere, which creates jobs in other industries.

Second, it's not because people watch for free that they would for a cost. There's nothing to say that if there was no piracy, sales would be higher. Perhaps instead people would have put money into other entertainment avenues.

Here's an example: I only buy like one movie every two years. The rest I loan from someone (which is not illegal). I never go to the theater unless I get free tickets, and even then I dislike the setting, I like the comfort at home much better. Lately, I haven't seen a movie in three months and I don't really miss them either, I just do something else with my time. If instead of having friends loan me their movies from time to time I would "download" them, the end result would be the same for the movie industy (0$). However, they would add me up in their stats as a lost sale, costing them jobs. Their analysis is a fallacy. The biggest proof of all that is that the more a movie sells, the more that movie is pirated (according to stats). Which would tend to say that more piracy = more sales. The movie industry rethoric though, just like all industries, is always "gimme more".


Rob
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

Movies cost a lot of money to make. $200 million+ for the summer blockbuster. Add another $50-100 million to market.

Maybe they should stop paying these actors $15-20 mil to make a movie then.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP!


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 edit
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

Lost revenue does equal lost tax revenue.
* * *
In this arena, it does cost jobs. It does erode our trade deficit.

In the first place, $6 billion per year is a grossly exaggerated number. Several posters here have pointed out the fraudulent methodology that inflates the figure.

But leaving that aside, a loss to Hollywood of $X billion per year (whatever the true number may be) is an approximately equal gain to the rest of the economy. The world collectively enjoys whatever number of units of entertainment either way, but by paying $X less for it, $X is made available for other economic activity, and contributes to jobs and taxes.

And if the other economic activities that the $X is used for, are less corrupt (see other poster's points about Hollywood accounting) or more productive, there is a net gain to society overall.

on edit: I see that Capharnaum See Profile has made the same point while I was writing. Props.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

Bootleg is NOT a legal job.
He didn't meantion bootlegging, but merely the blank media market. Surely they see a windfall from piracy, but I'd hardly claim the product TDK & other media retailers sell is illegal.


Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
kudos:1
The lack of knowledge about how big business works, what it requires to make a Hollywood movie, amount of financing it takes to fund the manufacturing and distribution combined with the total lack of respect for capitalism is astounding.

Anyone here who complains about actors making too much or crying about how bad the movies are clearly has no understanding about supply and demand.

If you think the movies are bad, then I guess you shouldn't be wasting all of your oh-so-precious time downloading it illegally either.

Hypocrites.
--
It's all part of my rock and roll fantasy

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
said by Fountainhead:

The lack of knowledge about how big business works, what it requires to make a Hollywood movie, amount of financing it takes to fund the manufacturing and distribution combined with the total lack of respect for capitalism is astounding.

Anyone here who complains about actors making too much or crying about how bad the movies are clearly has no understanding about supply and demand.

If you think the movies are bad, then I guess you shouldn't be wasting all of your oh-so-precious time downloading it illegally either.

Hypocrites.
I worked in the business and I can tell you, firsthand, that most of the stuff coming out is not worth the film stock it is on.

Hollywood has gone from making good movies to trying to make money off of formulas and has been for quite a while.

And before you bring it up, I don't download anything illegally. I have enough friends with Neflix or who buy the DVD's themselves that I can borrow them and see if the movie is worth it. Plus, I will buy certain ones I like.

I know the costs associated with making movies but I also know that most studios bank on a "name" to bring them into the theater rather than the story. Explain "The Blair Witch Project" which made millions. Explain "Last Action Hero" and "Ishtar" which both had big names and BOMBED.


rachelsfx

join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
reply to kamm
Kinda funny since I am in that industry as a consultant.
Expand your moderator at work


GilbertMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Cox HSI
reply to Capharnaum

Re: I agree

said by Capharnaum:

said by rachelsfx:

In this arena, it does cost jobs. It does erode our trade deficit. You want to watch--pay for it like your parents did.
First, there's no job lost, they're just displaced. People that don't spend "x" billion spend it elsewhere, which creates jobs in other industries.

Second, it's not because people watch for free that they would for a cost. There's nothing to say that if there was no piracy, sales would be higher. Perhaps instead people would have put money into other entertainment avenues.

Here's an example: I only buy like one movie every two years. The rest I loan from someone (which is not illegal). I never go to the theater unless I get free tickets, and even then I dislike the setting, I like the comfort at home much better. Lately, I haven't seen a movie in three months and I don't really miss them either, I just do something else with my time. If instead of having friends loan me their movies from time to time I would "download" them, the end result would be the same for the movie industy (0$). However, they would add me up in their stats as a lost sale, costing them jobs. Their analysis is a fallacy. The biggest proof of all that is that the more a movie sells, the more that movie is pirated (according to stats). Which would tend to say that more piracy = more sales. The movie industry rethoric though, just like all industries, is always "gimme more".
Perfectly put!
--
Got a V3 or a V3i? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com


thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to rachelsfx
They are losing money because they're falling behind the times.

If I hear a new movie is good and I should check it out, here's what goes through my mind. Money aside - since usenet costs money, as do rentals(with all the free coupons it comes out to the same amount monthly anyway). Do I want to set it to download, go to the bathroom, come back, and have a relatively high quality movie, or do I want to take a trip to blockbuster, take the bus there and back, to get the movie?

It may not even be out in blockbuster yet.

Sure, it's not that horrible, but it's a huge pain in the ass by comparison. This is much less hassle. People are obviously willing to pay for their material since many downloaders buy CDs, DVDs, and pay for usenet. Why should I have to do that, just because the MPAA hates new technology including the internet?

It's not just about the cost. If it were, people wouldn't pay more for better computers, better hard drives(all sorts of storage media actually, and media writers like DVD-RW drives), and they sure as hell will pay more for a better internet connection. It doesn't destroy the economy, it shifts it in a different direction. It's about the conveinence, the change in the culture. It's not just about the MPAA trying to restrict money flow, they're trying to restrict a whole new market, a new way of spreading media altogether.

If they did come up with an online service, I'm sure the stuff would be encoded worse than what I can get for free, heavily DRMed, and cost as much as the original. That IS the standard nowadays for legally downloadable copyrighted content. It's their fault for not embracing a new technology until it's too late, and when they do so they stay completely out of touch with what people want. This is what happens to corporations when they do this - they lose money. So why should I feel bad when they cry poverty?
--
The Problem With Music.


Our Rationale


Time to rewrite the DMCA.


JRW2
R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.
Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx:

said by Tophet:

That's not totally correct. Some people would rather download the movie and see if it's any good before going to the movies to see it or buy the DVD. I'm not saying everyone, but some. If hollywood would produce quality work at reasonable prices, then people would pay the money. Plus not to mention the media attention and verbal attention it receives as free advertising from the internet downloads.
Okay, that is why we have REVIEWS! People can read them or go to Yahoo and read user reviews. Your argument is pretty ridiculous (watch it for free so I know if I want to pay to see it ).
Most reviews are NOT worth the paper they are printed on!
--
RIAA... Bite me!!!!

Capharnaum

join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
reply to thender2
said by thender2:

They are losing money because they're falling behind the times.
I know where you're headed with your post, but I need to highlight something that's really wrong: the industry has successfully brainwashed a majority of people into thinking they are losing money. Well... here's the news: they are not losing money, some studios are making a pretty good living too.

They claim (like all industries), that they are not maxing out their revenues (just like oil firms will say the same, for other reasons, etc). Somehow, they've made enough noise so that the casual people think the movie industry is in trouble, when it is not (just like the music industry).


swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 recommendation

reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead:

Anyone here who complains about actors making too much or crying about how bad the movies are clearly has no understanding about supply and demand.

If you think the movies are bad, then I guess you shouldn't be wasting all of your oh-so-precious time downloading it illegally either.

Hypocrites.

So according to you, anyone who questions this biased "study" must be someone who is downloading illegally? What kind of logic is that?

There are some people who present high prices or low quality as an excuse for copyright infringement. But others are merely suggesting that there are other possible causes for the alleged "losses" which the cartel questionably attributes to piracy. (There is *some* loss to piracy, but it turns out to be a lot less than claimed when the biased methodology is exposed.)

Even in regard to the "hypocrites" as you call them, it's not an either/or dichotomy where a movie must be either worth full price or not desirable at all. In reality, there are often mismatches between asking and offering price, and this is a very common reason for piracy.

For example, smuggling appears whenever taxes artificially inflate the price of a product (cigarettes across borders for example). The situation of the entertainment industry is like this in principle. The artificial monopoly privilege introduced by copyright law in its current form distorts the market and piracy naturally appears to fill the gaps created.

Watch for fallacies of your own before lecturing about economics.

baldwookie

join:2004-11-22
Fredericton, NB
reply to Capharnaum
FINALLY! Somebody says it! Most pirates wouldn't purchase if they couldn't pirate. They'd just not pirate. No losses there (except the tax revenue on the blank media that the governments would lose).


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Slacker44
A lot of people who copy or download movies do so for one reason... because it is FREE or nearly so.

The assumption that a copy equals a lost retail sale has always been fatally flawed, whether it be in Music, Movies, or software.

Simply put: If copying or downloading was let's say PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE it doesn't mean that Hollywood's profits would soar by hundreds of millions. It means that people would just make do with much less JUNK then they have now.

In other words, if someone doesn't want to spend $19.95 on a DVD they aren't going to do it! Just because they were able to download a copy or burn a copy doesn't mean that they ever were going to pay that $19.95.

It's always been, and will continue to be, a fatally flawed assumption.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)


rachelsfx

join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
reply to thender2
Theft is theft no matter how ou put it.


thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY

1 recommendation

said by rachelsfx:

Theft is theft no matter how ou put it.
Ignorance is ignorance no matter how strict, or morally uptight you attempt to sound.

It's nice to see you brought a full, fitting arguement to the table too. Good job.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA.


Joey Joe Joe

@qwest.net
reply to rachelsfx
Pay like my parents did? They didn't have DVD players or VHS players back then. Before the late 70's nobody owned a movie they could watch at home--unless you were super rich and had your own home theatre. How did the studios survive for so many years and keep producing new movies without that source of revenue?