RSS
Twitter
Copyright Infringement Bad; Hulk Smash!
from the and-yet... dept
I've been seeing this story all day today, and was debating whether or not it was worth posting. A man in New Jersey has admitted he is guilty of distributing a copy of the new Hulk movie online. He received an advanced copy, digitized it, and put it online. Clearly, that's a violation of copyright. Even he admits it. He's now facing up to three years in jail and a $250,000 fine for doing this. However, the Hulk opened last weekend to the tune of $62 million, so you really have to wonder what impact this bootleg copy had? The people who are likely to download such a movie are big fans - who are also likely to go see the movie "on the big screen". Once again, going to the movies is a social event. It's not something that's replaced by a downloaded copy of the movie. In fact, I'm willing to bet that many of the fans who downloaded the movie also went to the theaters to see it - and those that didn't, probably wouldn't have gone anyway. So, yes, this guy clearly broke the law - and, thus, should be punished. However, I find it hard to believe he actually did any "damage" to the movie industry.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
The big money from the movie box office comes when people see a movie more than once. And the really big money come from video and DVD rental, and then from video and DVD sales.
Now, they don't release the DVD at the same time the movie goes into the theatres... that would just be bad business, and would diminish the overall revenue.
When this fellow made the movie available for downloading, he basically "released the DVD" all by himself. The same logic applies... it's not good for business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
This is the same argument they used when they saw Star Wars Episode 2 was online and Harry Potter and (name whatever big movie was just released)...
My question is this: Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that any fanboy who spent countless hours (at least 4 or 5 if not days) downloading a bad copy of the movie (even the best quality copies are not even VCR copy-grade) didn't (or won't) see the damn movie once or a dozen times in the theater???
I'm not saying what this guy did was right...but I don't buy that this damaged anyone's revenues...while personal experience isn't statistically relevant, I'm sure mine isn't atypical...I find that most people I know who went through the trouble of downloading a movie like say...Lord of The Rings also saw it 3-4 times in the theater, bought the DVD, then bought the Collector's Edition DVD etc...where was the money LOST????
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hulk bad
I have to disagree that it did no damage. I was excited to see the hulk and was planning on seeing it in the theater. A friend showed me a copy on CD and after watching it I did not like it enough to go see it in the theater as I had planned.
I think if the movie is really good then the leak won't hurt it because people will want to see a clean copy. If the movie is only so-so many people will be satisfied with the copy and not bother to see the movie in the theater.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why so fast???
How is it that this went to court so quickly. This is usually a months-long process at best?? Why did he plea so fast????
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Why so fast???
must have been a priority.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment