The 50 million dollar kid. (Piracy)

[Darth K'Trava]

Movie studios don't support piracy. They're in the business to make money not to get their name out like unknown bands do. That came out sorta wrong... Let's try this again.... unknown bands DO want to make money, but the filesharing can be considered cheap advertising that otherwise they couldn't afford. Granted there's alot of "indie" bands who make videos that get shown on FUSE which is how I got exposed to alot of them. One or two I've even bought their albums (Franz Ferdinand) who didn't get airplay on my local alternative station. I thought that that group was cool to show up to the Grammys (according to the backstage pre-show program that FUSE ran), whether or not they won one and even got to perform their hit song, "Take Me Out".

But movies do alot of heavy pre-release advertising via their studios. So people know more about an upcoming flick than music. And they stand to lose more if the movie ends up sucking than bands do due to the sheer amount of money dumped on it...

 

[IamTheTest]

By that logic downloading a movie is only worth $7.50 (the price of one movie ticket...give or take). I suppose my issue is the dispersal of money. If you buy a cd most of the money goes to the record company and a little bit goes to the artist. Im not entirely sure where the money goes when you see a movie. If it goes to the writers or filmakers then great...if it goes to some executive fatcat that doesnt deserve it then thats a little offputting for me. I dont mind paying artists.

 

[mojo1701]

By that logic downloading a movie is only worth $7.50 (the price of one movie ticket...give or take). I suppose my issue is the dispersal of money. If you buy a cd most of the money goes to the record company and a little bit goes to the artist. Im not entirely sure where the money goes when you see a movie. If it goes to the writers or filmakers then great...if it goes to some executive fatcat that doesnt deserve it then thats a little offputting for me. I dont mind paying artists.

Since most of the people who worked on it already get paid for the production, it goes to "studio fatcats," as you so put it, as well as any and all executive producers for funding such an operation.

 

[Jesus_marley]

The problem I have is that Movies and music are "art forms" in which you have to pay BEFORE you see the work. My take on it is this. If an artist produces a work that is of any quality (IMO) I will purchase it if I like it. I have a serious problem with buying a CD for 15-20 dollars only to discover that it is mostly crap. Just as I don't pay a painter or a photographer until after the work is done and I am satisfied with it, I will not buy a CD or movie until after I have heard/seen it.
Any artist worth their salt can understand the concept. If you produce quality work, people will buy it. If you produce crap, you starve.

 

[der_kluge]

Ya! That's about as stupid putting their TurboTax info into their Bearshare shared folder!

Hey! Well I,.. er.. yea, I guess so.

It was never downloaded though, so fortunately I caught it quickly enough.

 

[ReignMan]

The problem I have is that Movies and music are "art forms" in which you have to pay BEFORE you see the work. My take on it is this. If an artist produces a work that is of any quality (IMO) I will purchase it if I like it. I have a serious problem with buying a CD for 15-20 dollars only to discover that it is mostly crap. Just as I don't pay a painter or a photographer until after the work is done and I am satisfied with it, I will not buy a CD or movie until after I have heard/seen it.
Any artist worth their salt can understand the concept. If you produce quality work, people will buy it. If you produce crap, you starve.

Don't think Sony, BMI etc. will buy that one but it's at least a sensible approach.

 

[Abstraction]

I think the main concern for movie studios is that an early copy of a movie downloaded off the internet might actually impact movie sales. This happened the The Hulk, I think. An early, unfinished copy got out on the internet and everybody started talking about how bad it was. Even a little bad press before opening weekend can impact a movie hugely.

That being said, I don't think you can calculate the cost of illegal downloading based on the money the movie/music maybe mighta kinda made, someday. Just because it is a huge corporation doesn't make a frivolous lawsuit less frivolous.

 

[barsoomcore]

Even a little bad press before opening weekend can impact a movie hugely.

Sort of like the way making a house that doesn't stand up can impact its saleability? Or like the way making a car that doesn't start can impact its sales? Or like the way...

Well, you get the point.

I got no sympathy for people who make crap and then whine that they lost money on it.

I do think that if this kid was selling this material, that's illegal and is EXACTLY what copyright is supposed to stop and he ought to go to jail for it. Copyright is supposed to protect the rights holders from losses due to unauthorized distribution of their works. The problem these days is proving that filesharing availability actually hurts sales -- that the people who download something are people who would have bought it otherwise.

Cause I can tell you, I would never have bought "Bad Girls", but having downloaded it, boy does Donna Summer ever rock.

 

[barsoomcore]

A further note: I think that what we're seeing is the end of centralized creation and distribution of a number of forms of entertainment. If you think about it, it used to be that the only way you could watch, for example, thrilling displays of life and death struggles was by going to the Circus and watching the games the Emperor put on. Entertainment's gotten more and more decentralized as people have gotten wealthier and wealthier and as the means of creation and distribution have gotten easier and easier.

Now anyone can record music in the living room. And it's getting cheaper and cheaper to create movies. And the distribution systems are likewise getting easier and cheaper to use.

The net result is that the studio system isn't going to remain supportable. And that means that making significant amounts of money off movies and music is going to get harder and harder. No amount of legislation is going to stop that. Artists don't need the big bankrolls to get their work completed and out to their audience anymore.

Look at the massive fantasy novel industry going on on the Story Hour board here. Publishers of novels are losing out -- it's gotten too easy to distribute writing to your audience without needing some deep-pocketed corporation funding you. Or go over to RPGNow and check out what's happening there.

We still don't have a distribution technology as simple as the book, and books still cost a lot of money to produce and distribute, so publishers are okay for now, but they ought to be watching the movie and music industries. Because all this is inevitable. People are clever and want stuff cheap and they'll always find a way. And the big successes are going to be the people who recognize those opportunities and take advantage of them -- NOT those who refuse to acknowledge reality and try to strong-arm the world into not changing.

Sorry, ranting. Done now.

 

[BOZ]

without getting too political...

there's a difference betwen filesharing (listen to it... share) and *selling* downloaded files to people. in the one, you are not paying for the product, but not making any profit off of it either. in the other, you are not only not paying for it, but in fact are getting paid for it - the RIAA would look at that as a double loss for the industry.