Bootlegger Gets 33 mos in jail!

[George Ebersole]

Just some personal thoughts on how this situation came to be;

 

1) when the net was still just universities, Prodigy, and dial up BBSes, I had real reservations about it going global because of different cultural values abroad, and didn't think it was a good idea. We've seen the results in the form of piracy and anti-social groups organizing not just on a local, but global basis.

 

2) I had the same feelings regarding digital media, and was curious why more safeguards weren't put in to guard property when CDs first became commercially available. A Laser Disc printer, at the time, cost around $30,000 to $60,000 dollars for an industry standard burner (you could get a bargain one for $10,000), which put a barrier on illegal LDs. In fact, I can't think of a single instance of pirated LDs anywhere, though that's not to say they didn't exist, it's just that those who could afford the equipment were not inclined to make pirated LDs for consumption on the black market.

 

So, when CD burners came around I was again shocked that there weren't more safeguards put into the media itself, or even perhaps the hardware, that would disallow and deny efforts at piracy. I've often thought that the research engineers and the people overseeing them don't think ahead enough to share enough of their new gadgets with the creators of the very things they want to enjoy; movies and music.

 

On the other thread we're discussing pay rates for DPs. Part of the reason I left the industry in the mid-90s was because I saw the handwriting on the wall way back in 1987 when SONY was experimenting with BETA-16 and variable shutters to emulate film motion on a video camera. I figured I would best be served by not crewing and going for producer or other Above The Line position because the technology was going to democratize the playing field. And it has. One of the results, as was noted, is that you have people buying their way into the industry with elaborate camera packages, but with little training.

 

That's kind of what it is with piracy. Not only is there rampant theft, but on top of that you have poor quality control, and the industry has to keep pumping dollars into big event tent poles to make a return, or build a franchise. But again, if everybody else is doing it because the technology is there, then why bother?

[George Ebersole]

 

No more than just not watching it at all, which is the point.

 

P

 

Right, but if they were going to view your film, then the process is to pay to see your film. The idea is not for them to watch it illegally, then rave about it to other people who you hope might give you some dollars to see what you made,

 

EDIT; which was the point Nicolas was making, and I'll deny the validity of that any day of the week.

[Mark Dunn]

 

No more than just not watching it at all, which is the point.

 

P

I don't accept that it's alright for people to rip off my images just because they're not benefiting commercially, which they usually are.

If they're not, then those who copy it from them will probably be. And so on.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I very much disagree with your analysis and summation.

 

I appreciate that, but unfortunately we are missing critical data on how exactly piracy affects the film industry on a short and long term, so it's hard to come up with a definite view on the problem.

 

What we can agree on is that pirating a movie rather than paying to watch it is theft, as long as a paying alternative exists (It is ridiculous to call a thief someone who desperately wants to see a movie that is not available in their home country - while that problem might seem ridiculous to Americans and to a somewhat lesser extent Europeans, this is a very real problem for other people throughout the world). It is the industry's job to make sure all content becomes available everywhere to make sure that kind of piracy becomes irrelevant, and they are making progress on that front.

 

What we can wonder is how exactly piracy is more destructive to the film business than camcorders and VHS were in the 90s, when everybody and their mothers were recording movies on TV and passing them around freely.

 

What we can see is that theatres' attendances are breaking records steadily, year after year. If I were to take into account that fact only, which is verifiable, it is hard to claim that piracy has had a negative impact on the industry at all.

 

The best promotion you can get is word of mouth, but what good is it if nobody is willing to pay to see your final product?

 

 

That's my point exactly: People are still willing to pay. The numbers prove it. People will always love the cinematic experience, and will always pay to fill theatre seats.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Brian Drysdale]

It's important to realize that the theatrical release is only a part of a film's revenue stream, other sales sectors are usually more more important. For many films the theatrical release is only a show case, TV. DVD and other sales are were they make their money back in the longer therm.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

I don't accept that it's alright for people to rip off my images just because they're not benefiting commercially, which they usually are.

 

It's not all right (in much the same way as doing five miles an hour over the speed limit isn't OK). What it isn't is a major drain on anyone's finances.

 

This is important because often companies will take a number of downloads, multiply it by the price of a DVD, and try to claim that's their net loss to piracy, which is absurd.

 

P

[Mark Dunn]

Well at the risk of labouring a rather peripheral point, it's a drain on mine, or would be if I didn't pursue it, when I collect more in a year from infringement settlements than I do from licensing images.

I can point to a couple of images of mine which were copied dozens of times within hours of publication by the legitimate licensor. I certainly consider that multiple of the licence fee to be my potential loss.

They go onto commercial sites, usually in the Far East or Russia, and I can't touch them.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mark Dunn

[John E Clark]

Well at the risk of labouring a rather peripheral point, it's a drain on mine, or would be if I didn't pursue it, when I collect more in a year from infringement settlements than I do from licensing images.

I can point to a couple of images of mine which were copied dozens of times within hours of publication by the legitimate licensor. I certainly consider that multiple of the licence fee to be my potential loss.

They go onto commercial sites, usually in the Far East or Russia, and I can't touch them.

 

That to me is the 'real' problem. You can arrest every pirate west of the Ural mountains, and east of Midway Island, and you most likely won't make a hill of beans of difference in actual lost revenue from 'pirating'.

 

But would the US make trade with China dependent on China internally cracking down on pirating??? Most likely not, because when all is said and done, the bigger part of the pie is trade than worrying about loss from such processes... perhaps on the order of some number of freighters lost at sea, which can be factored into 'operating losses'.

 

Even with actual seafaring pirates, trade has not stopped in the Indian Ocean, nor in the Strait of Malacca.

 

Some of the claims about film pirating remind me of the 'anti-porn' propaganda, which would have the 'porn' industry in the 100's of billions, when in fact, it is more realistically estimated to be under 5-10 billion... lucrative enough to continue, but not something that really is outragiously beyond comprehension. This is especially in view of the non-porn film industry estimates of 8-10 billion yearly. (could be more but not by much, as I've not updated my market size estimates in several years...).

 

Oddly in the case of porn, both sides wanted 'inflated' numbers, the antipornlers for 'how big is the scourge'... and the 'propornlers' for 'look we have such a large legitimate business', so as to be taken more seriously...

Edited September 1, 2014 by jeclark2006

[Guest]

 

That to me is the 'real' problem. You can arrest every pirate west of the Ural mountains, and east of Midway Island, and you most likely won't make a hill of beans of difference in actual lost revenue from 'pirating'.

 

Technically yes, because you only need one working torrent that everyone around the globe can pull from.

 

We do however have the power to block sites like Pirate Bay from being accessible to the US, and the other major markets.

 

There are also a ton of sites out there that provide newly designed bootleg packaging for DVDs being sold at flea markets. The idea is to make the packaging look as legit as possible. These illegal DVDs are often sold by smiling families at flea markets who don't, or won't, conceive of the idea that they are doing anything wrong.

 

Look at the great job they did coming up with new packaging for the illegal DVDs they plan to sell of my last movie:

 

http://www.freecovers.net/cover/83afd503bb44f171fae31e6d8350a8cc/Against_The_Wild_(2014)_R2_CUSTOM.html

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

 

It's not all right (in much the same way as doing five miles an hour over the speed limit isn't OK). What it isn't is a major drain on anyone's finances.

 

This is important because often companies will take a number of downloads, multiply it by the price of a DVD, and try to claim that's their net loss to piracy, which is absurd.

 

P

 

It's absurd only if you can prove that they would not have attempted to view the film otherwise. That is to say they only DL'd or watched it because it was free, or for a price less than what the retailer was asking.

[George Ebersole]

 

I appreciate that, but unfortunately we are missing critical data on how exactly piracy affects the film industry on a short and long term, so it's hard to come up with a definite view on the problem.

 

What we can agree on is that pirating a movie rather than paying to watch it is theft, as long as a paying alternative exists (It is ridiculous to call a thief someone who desperately wants to see a movie that is not available in their home country - while that problem might seem ridiculous to Americans and to a somewhat lesser extent Europeans, this is a very real problem for other people throughout the world). It is the industry's job to make sure all content becomes available everywhere to make sure that kind of piracy becomes irrelevant, and they are making progress on that front.

 

What we can wonder is how exactly piracy is more destructive to the film business than camcorders and VHS were in the 90s, when everybody and their mothers were recording movies on TV and passing them around freely.

 

What we can see is that theatres' attendances are breaking records steadily, year after year. If I were to take into account that fact only, which is verifiable, it is hard to claim that piracy has had a negative impact on the industry at all.

 

 

That's my point exactly: People are still willing to pay. The numbers prove it. People will always love the cinematic experience, and will always pay to fill theatre seats.

 

No, there's no such responsibility on the part of any production company that I know of. There's stuff produced in Germany, France, Japan, the UK, even in the Nordic and African countries that I'd like to see, but can't. I shrug at it. I do without it.

 

Or, if I have the extra income, and I can find it on Amazon, then I splurge on an international order.

 

I don't go to some torrent or pirate bay site and hope to hell that there isn't a virus as I stream or DL the film in question.

 

And, just for the record, I've gotten burned with illegal copies over the last fifteen years. And I for one do NOT like illegal copies, but not only for the fact that they're illegal, but also because they're piss poor dupes of the original material.

 

If the film isn't available, well, then tough s__t. I wanted a copy of "The High road to China" for many many years, but the only legit copy I could get was a full screen version (with lots of color bleed) from the Singapore distributor who still had the home video rights to the film. I didn't particularly like the quality, but I was able to enjoy the film. Same thing with a few other films.

 

If ... oh hell, I don't know, "Star Wars" or "Gone with the Wind" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" were not available, then a lot of people would be really put out. But that's no justification to go ahead and fork out cash for a bootleg, nor to scrounge the net for a flie or series of files of the films in question.

 

It would have been a bad financial move on the part of all parties involved in those films to deny home video and rental sales, whatever form they may be, but that's their decision.

[George Ebersole]

 

That to me is the 'real' problem. You can arrest every pirate west of the Ural mountains, and east of Midway Island, and you most likely won't make a hill of beans of difference in actual lost revenue from 'pirating'.

 

 

No, that's not true either. The issue there, however, is the practicality of enforcement. Police the world over already have a lot on their plate, and there are only so many detectives and other officers to crack down on intellectual theft.

 

Therefore a better solution is to create a mechanism for distribution and / or pricing scheme that deters piracy.

 

Like I said, it's my belief that the majors have come close to pricing themselves out of business. I can't remember the last good film I saw in the theatres that I was willing to pay to see. "Tangled"? "Megamind"? "Our Idiot Brother"? I don't know about the rest of the nation and world, but here it's $12 for an adult, and that's for a Sunday night showing.

 

I still love seeing a good film, but I can't stand the prices, people talking in theatres, and the large number of retreads of classic properties thrown up on the screen. But, for all that, I don't get angry at "the man" and stick it to the film companies by going to a torrent site. I wait for something I like, then purchase it if I like it enough. If it's not available, then I watch something else, or do another activity entirely.

 

I'm curious why other people do not do this.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I'm curious why other people do not do this.

 

At the risk of repeating myself one too many time, everybody does this, and a highly negligible minority do not.

 

The fact that production companies and distributors are still standing at all in spite of VHS, TV replays, DVD burners, torrents, streaming websites, is proof of this. People never stopped paying for content, and they will keep paying for content. The argument you have put forward in your last message - the fact that pirated material very often is of piss-poor quality, is one of the reasons. Other reasons include the will to support an industry that still makes people dream, and the power of the cinema experience.

 

There is nothing piracy can do to really harm filmmakers, at least today, because they are one against a million, if even. They hold no weight whatsoever, and if their numbers have not grown significantly since the creation of counterfeit material, and if their technology has never been able to convince people to flee theatres and stay home to watch their illegal copies, then I really do not see why mentalities would suddenly shift.

 

You all seem to think that there is a vast majority of evil pirates out there who never pay to see a single film and spend their time on bit torrent. This is where you are wrong.

[Brian Drysdale]

I think you're missing the point that most of a film's revenues usually isn't from the theatrical release, it's from other forms of income. Only a small parentage of the box office receipts actaully goes to the funders of the film, most goes to the exhibitors and other people in the distribution chain. The Studios have an advantage in that they tend to be part of that chain, however, independent producers' films are not. These film are also more reliant on the non theatrical markets, although on the other hand business savvy pirates are more likely to go a studio movie than an art house film. However, there are low budget genre films which can be added to their catalogue and any losses, (like at the local corner shop) can have an impact.

 

As an example, I worked on a very low budget horror film for a friend and within a week of it being released on DVD, you could download it for free. It's hard to tell the impact on sales, but it only takes a few going for a download instead of the DVD at this level to turn a small profit into a small lose.

 

BTW The pirated HD download I recently saw of a major feature film at someone's house was of very good quality,

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I think you're missing the point that most of a film's revenues usually isn't from the theatrical release, it's from other forms of income. Only a small parentage of the box office receipts actaully goes to the funders of the film, most goes to the exhibitors and other people in the distribution chain.

 

For the record, this is not entirely true, at least not everywhere. Contracts between distributors/producers and theaters usually state that in the first two weeks after release, the bigger share of the ticket price (after deduction of the "Nut") goes to the producer/distributor. As time goes by, the percentage that goes to the theatre becomes bigger and bigger, while that of the producer/distributor becomes smaller.

 

This is why nowadays, films rarely stay more than two weeks in theatres: Why would the producers lose money when they can replace their two-week-old film by a new one that will allow them a larger slice of the money pie? Only the major blockbusters - and then, only if their BO numbers are sufficiently high in the first two weeks - can justify being held over, because even the constantly decreasing shares going into the distributors' pockets remain more lucrative than a bigger share on a less successful movie.

 

This is also why in the last ten years, film food prices have increased by as much as 150% in certain areas: Theatre companies, even multiplexes, see less and less money coming their way because of the speed at which their entire film catalogue is renewed, and have to sell more and more food to break even.

 

In other countries the percentages are fixed, but again, the theatre does not get a bigger share than the studios or producers.

 

In France for instance, 41% of the ticket price goes to the producer. Another 41% goes to the theatre (this includes the house allowance / operating costs, so the actual earnings for the theater are much less than 41%). Over 10% of the ticket price represent a tax payed to the Centre National de la Cinematographie, which uses the money to finance new films. The rest goes to the SACEM, an organism in charge of protecting authorship and fight copyright infringements.

 

on the other hand business savvy pirates are more likely to go a studio movie than an art house film.

 

Unfortunately there is no viable way to verify that statement.

 

Interestingly though, independent studies (not backed by the MPAA, screen associations and other copyright companies) have often found that pirates are also often spending a lot more money on films, music and games, than regular paying consumers.

 

A few links that might be of interest:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/swiss-government-study-finds-internet-downloads-increase-sales/

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397173,00.asp

 

http://bgr.com/2013/03/20/music-piracy-study-digital-revenues-385611/

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090119/1943093458.shtml

 

 

Again, Hollywood and distributors complain so often about movie piracy that people tend to get this idea that there are hundreds of millions of pirates around the world staying at home and watching films for free all day long.

 

The numbers point to a much different truth: people are still paying for movies (in cinemas, yes, but also DVDs, Blu Rays, Netflix and the likes) because they are much more intelligent than what a lot of you give them credit for. They understand the problem, know they have to support the industry and oh, just maybe, they are decent people and want to pay for what they get.

 

I will not subscribe to this paranoia that pirates are everywhere and cost millions to the industry. And frankly, there is nothing to back up that claim, other than the constant whining of an industry that feels like it is losing touch with its consumer base because it has failed to keep up with the pace of modern living.

 

But like I said, they are making progress... Finally.

 

Ironically, one of the studies listed above states that Hollywood has already spent three times as much on anti-piracy campaigns as what piracy has actually "stolen".

Edited September 2, 2014 by Nicolas Courdouan

[George Ebersole]

 

At the risk of repeating myself one too many time, everybody does this, and a highly negligible minority do not.

 

The fact that production companies and distributors are still standing at all in spite of VHS, TV replays, DVD burners, torrents, streaming websites, is proof of this. People never stopped paying for content, and they will keep paying for content. The argument you have put forward in your last message - the fact that pirated material very often is of piss-poor quality, is one of the reasons. Other reasons include the will to support an industry that still makes people dream, and the power of the cinema experience.

 

There is nothing piracy can do to really harm filmmakers, at least today, because they are one against a million, if even. They hold no weight whatsoever, and if their numbers have not grown significantly since the creation of counterfeit material, and if their technology has never been able to convince people to flee theatres and stay home to watch their illegal copies, then I really do not see why mentalities would suddenly shift.

 

You all seem to think that there is a vast majority of evil pirates out there who never pay to see a single film and spend their time on bit torrent. This is where you are wrong.

 

No, that's not true either. If it were, then piracy wouldn't be a problem. I think most people are pretty honest folks, and go for the legit thing. But it's like speeding. If the cops aren't around, and a lot of other people seem to be doing it, then why not risk a few dollars on a bootleg DVD or illegal download? Why not get in the fast lane and press the accelerator a little?

 

And that's the problem.

 

I bet if asked a lot of those people would say they probably would not have paid money to see the film in question. But the fact that they were willing to steal it means that they were willing to see it provided the price was right. In this case "free".

 

I am curious what the actual numbers are though.

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect interrelationship between piracy and it's subsequent replacement legal downloading sites is a complex one. Although, I'm not sure that a rather unique country like Switzerland can be used as a model for other countries, never mind other continents can be anything other an interesting example.

 

Regarding popcorn and screenings. The former has always been important source of revenue for cinemas, that's why they prefer films for the 15 to 25 age group. That age range is more likely to buy popcorn than the older age groups, who tend to only buy their ticket and watch the film. It never was that common for films to run beyond a couple of weeks, unless it was a real blockbuster and with multi screen cinemas they tend to use more screens, rather than hold up the next big blockbuster scheduled to come out. There are probably now more of these big budget films around than in the days of single screen theatres..

[George Ebersole]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US it's all negotiated between exhibitors and distributors. It's a private enterprise, and percentages are not legislated. They are bargained. And the theatre owners (corporate and individual owners) get to see the films before hand before deciding on whether to buy them or not.

 

Films usually have a four month run. That's shortened from when films could run in a theatre for up to a year or more, and then get rereleased (I believe Disney used to do this, and Lucas rereleased his Star Wars films over the last 30 years, a smattering of other examples), but films still make a good chunk of their return at the box office. They're still dependent on the box office to make a return, but it's not the sole source of income for exhibition.

 

From the PC article the Swiss government states that 2.6mil people DL'd fils, but 5mil purchased films, CDs and computer games. Well, okay, but there's absolutely NO WAY to show that what they pirated is what they also purchased, as the article suggests. In fact I would say the opposite. I would say that where 5million bought stuff, half of those people PIRATED ADDITIONAL material that they didn't pay for.

 

The article says ticket sales remained constant. Okay, fine. Granted. But there's still piracy going on, and if sales haven't increased, THEN that means that additional profits gained are being lost due to piracy.

 

Ditto with the BGR article (a publication I've never heard of). Again, that's not what was shown in the late 90s and early 2000s. And it's the whole reason Yahoo music, Google, Amazon, Apple I-tunes came to the fore, to control the supply, because peer to peer networks took out the labor investment needed to put a record on a turntable, hook it up to a tape deck, and then actually make a bootleg to sell at a flea market. Suddenly it was easy to grab a copy, and when I talked with college aged students their argument was always the same; "Musicians are rich anyway, so it's not a big deal." Again ignoring the fact that it was the SALE of the very music they had pirated that had made those same musicians wealthy.

[George Ebersole]

Some additional resources, and ones a little more up to date than the Swiss study.

 

Interpol;

http://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-media/Events/2013/7th-Global-Congress-on-Combating-Counterfeiting-and-Piracy2/7th-Global-Congress-on-Combating-Counterfeiting-and-Piracy

 

Interpol's referenced Congress in the previous link;

http://www.ccapcongress.net/

 

The American assembly, sponsored by Columbia University, has dedicated an section to media piracy;

http://piracy.americanassembly.org/

 

If I can find the ET report I cited earlier, then I'll post a link to that too.

 

As a screenwriter, game author and former "trying to be again" crew-person whose set up lights, pushed dollies and struck stages, all for peanuts, I do get PO'd that someone would take anything I worked hard on, or stated that it was okay because "I was wealthy". Well, FYI, I am NOT wealthy. Far from it. Ergo more my interest in the topic.

[George Ebersole]

Wall Street Journal from last year

 

 

 

 

A more recent act;

 

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

You wouldn't steal a car, don't steal a movie!

 

Well, no, I wouldn't download a car. Er. Um.

 

P

[John E Clark]

I'm curious why other people do not do this.

 

Why other people may not 'wait' for a release in their region, because a studio doesn't see a reason to produce a disk for their region?

 

Since I read/listen/haltinglyspeak German, I can wait till dooms day for Region 1 release of German films in German with German Subtitles...

 

When I go to Germany I buy a number of disks, and guess what... because some hackers somewhere 'stole' intellectual property I can use VLC to play those legitimately purchased disks in my home town USA location.

 

Had I 'waited' for The Studios to distribute such versions in the USA (as in not F**Ked up with english subtitles or worse dubbed dialog...) I'd still be waiting.

 

When HDDVD came out it was 'region free'... guess what format became the industry standard... the regionized Bluray. Oh yeah, there was lots of whining about the 'quality' BD had over HDDVD, one significant feature was the regionalization 'option' which of course US studios have typically take advantage of.

 

Some countries say that it is 'illegal' to regionalize to the point were a consumer who has purchased a legitimate copy to not be able to play it, and have required the player manufacturer to provide 'code' options, or at least not take legal action against consumers who 'change' their player's region.

 

Not so in the US.

 

Then there's the issue of previously released films that for one reason or an other The Studios do not see a sufficient market to rerelease, yet there may be more than one person out there who wants to see it for whatever reason.

 

Your attitude of 'wait till some maven in Downtown Hollywood sees a market', will pretty much set that there will only be the most recent crap available.

 

I'll give an example. In 1932 Tod Browning (ever heard of him?) produced a film titled "Freaks". It eventually went into Public Domain status, and I think there's some debate about that... and for some reason, like 'film history', I glommed on to a torrent copy. I saw a DVD copy recently and bought it. The point being, had there been a DVD or 'legitimate' online site... I would have bought that in the first place. I think it is only because of the online 'interest' that someone somewhere saw enough 'market' to produce a legitimate(or at least a professional) distribution.

 

As for Todd Browning, I'm sure most people have seen one of his other films, "Dracula"(1931)... and was a fairly active director until "Freaks"... but I digress...

 

As for how effective the 'wait for change' is... I stopped watching Broadcast TV when CBS cancelled "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (who are these people???). As far as I can tell, my personal boycott has had in absolutely no effect on Broadcast TV programming in a direction that would bring me to resume watching. Since the show was cancelled in 1969, I've been 'waiting' nearly half a century for 'change'...

 

But back to 'philosophy'...

 

In my day job I could give a rats ass about 'copying' and 'pirating'. Since I deal in software, this is a popular topic along with either copyrights or 'software patents'. I tend to the 'make new novel items quicker than the patent processing can produce' side of this argument. And in many cases see certain types of patent actions as counter to 'innovation' rather than supporting it. This is now begun to be seen in some legislation in regard to 'patent trolls' where a law firm may pick up a dead company's 'patent assets' and then start sending out patent licensing schedules to everyone who 'looks like' they are producing something similar. In many cases large companies pay up because it is not worth their legal fees fighting such. As soon as someone pays up, that provides more court 'weight' for the troll, and it is harder to break, thus producing more licensing fees.

 

This on the same order of things as "Freaks" and requiring 'licensing' for use of copyrighted material. Tod Browning is long dead. This film was perhaps the coup de grace of his career, MGM which was an active studio at the time, has died and been resurrected a number of times since, and in some cases it was just for that 'library' as well as the name brand.

 

In other words 'licensing fees' would not pay the filmmakers to 'make more films' since they are all dead, and the company that sponsored them is dead (resurrections not withstanding).

[George Ebersole]

Because you want something does not entitle you to a copy, regardless of what it is. But that's what you're arguing.

 

Can you demonstrate a logical line that shows how that kind of reasoning is correct?

[John E Clark]

Because you want something does not entitle you to a copy, regardless of what it is. But that's what you're arguing.

 

Can you demonstrate a logical line that shows how that kind of reasoning is correct?

 

The concept of civil disobedience is quite in line for 'downloading' material that has no currently available option. In the case of "Freaks" depending on how one calculates 'Public Domain Status', it has been in PD status since at least 1988 by the following calculation, 1932 + 28 for the first copyright (you know back before a large "entertainment" conglomeratie lobbied for extending copyrights essentially 'in perpetuity' to corproations. Where as you a lowly mortal only gets Life+70 with the new internationally conforming copyright schedules), and the copyright could have been renewed in 1959 for another 28 at years, so that means "Freaks" is in PD status since 1987-88 or so.

 

However due to the Mickey Mouse Legislation, there may have been a period where orginal copyright holders could request a 'return to copyright status' of works that were in the PD.

 

I think this is wrong, and only because a well moneyed lobby pushed through crappy legislation that things are the way they are.

 

I don't give a rats ass about Sony, Disney, et al., losing a dime. I do feel strongly about an actual person who makes films and being able to enforce their personal copyrights for their material. I don't personally like 'works for hire', which has induced all manner of ills because the actual producing person, often does not see more than a miniscule benefit of their labors.

 

But there is no real organization for people who actually produce 'content' to go after pirates. The MPAA et al. only effectively address the corporations' interests, and only by some sort of collateral effect, effect individual filmmakers and their rights.

 

You your self have pointed this out. You have said you submitted information to various sites about 'copyrighted' material with little effect. Put MPAA behind your email... and guess what... things happen.

 

I have used the porn industry as an example. And for a while the porn content producers will attempting to enforce their copyrights. And while they still do, some are rethinking their approach and looking to produce more 'watchable' content to differntiate themselves and keep viewers interested in what is available via their legitimate distribution channels.

 

In the case of porn, there is the issue of idiot legislation which is puritanical in its core, which has limited how porn is 'paid for' on the internet which should be dispatched to allow for easy payment of such material. The government can enforce various relguations about age, etc. but as for 'payment' there should be no sigma relative to using credit cards etc for payment. But I digress...

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Regarding popcorn and screenings. The former has always been important source of revenue for cinemas, that's why they prefer films for the 15 to 25 age group. That age range is more likely to buy popcorn than the older age groups, who tend to only buy their ticket and watch the film. It never was that common for films to run beyond a couple of weeks, unless it was a real blockbuster and with multi screen cinemas they tend to use more screens, rather than hold up the next big blockbuster scheduled to come out. There are probably now more of these big budget films around than in the days of single screen theatres..

 

Popcorn has always been an important source of revenue for cinemas, but more and more it is becoming the only viable source of revenue for cinemas, and that is a problem. I am talking as someone who has had first hand experience of this.

 

It was very common for films to run more than two weeks, in fact it is still common practice to have most of them run for one month. Contracts negotiated between the exhibitors and the distributors usually use four weeks as a template and then reduce or extend the length of the run depending on projected box office numbers. Of course, most of the time now, films are replaced before the length of their contract has been honoured, due to a mutual agreement between both parties that the film does not generate enough revenue to justify four weeks of screenings when the sequel is already on the way and a catalogue of fresh new films that could break attendance records is fresh out of the oven.

 

There are more big budgets films around now because there are more films around now. I'm sure that if one were to study the market proportionately, they would find that the percentage of big events movies has roughly been the same for a very very long time. Long before piracy was even possible.

 

From the PC article the Swiss government states that 2.6mil people DL'd fils, but 5mil purchased films, CDs and computer games. Well, okay, but there's absolutely NO WAY to show that what they pirated is what they also purchased, as the article suggests. In fact I would say the opposite. I would say that where 5million bought stuff, half of those people PIRATED ADDITIONAL material that they didn't pay for.

 

 

That's exactly why it is hard to discuss the impact of piracy. There are no numbers detailing the loss generated by it, and it is only a matter of "I would say..." and "I would say the opposite..."

 

The only thing we can use as a basis for our argument are the numbers telling us how much money came in.

 

Here they are since 1980: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

 

If we were to look at the number of tickets sold only, we can see that the numbers are steady. Therefore, I'm tempted to say piracy has no impact as far as the theatrical experience is concerned.

 

And it is the same story every year: http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0322/377886-movie-box-office/

 

OK, so the box office is not the only source of revenue for movies. Let's have a look at the state of affairs on the home video front:

 

 

Full article here: http://www.digital-digest.com/blog/DVDGuy/2013/06/08/blu-ray-the-state-of-play-may-2013/

 

And a quote from a study by BCC Research:

 

The global digital living room device market reached close to $145 billion in 2010, according to BCC Research. The market is forecast to expand at a yearly rate of over 9% to reach almost $226 billion in 2015.

 

The numbers, again, are pretty easy to dig up: DVD sales have been declining since 2008 (the year Blu Rays were introduced), Blu Ray sales are increasing year after year, legal streaming is exploding (+50% between 2010 and 2012 in the US only, according to the DEG).

 

Who said the market was in a bad shape?

 

What will it take for us to realize that piracy indeed has no influence whatsoever on the market or people's mentalities? Customers keep being customers and paying more and more to consume more and more films. The industry is as healthy as ever, piracy or not.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Nicolas Courdouan