Dear MPAA: DRM Is Not A Requirement For Releasing Movies
from the nice-try,-but...-no. dept
We've written about the request from the MPAA to the FCC to grant a waiver that would allow the MPAA to use "selectable output control" (SOC) in order to block DVRs from recording their movies. As we noted, the movie studios basically would like to add in another movie release window, letting movies appear on television before they're released on DVD. Of course, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so today. However, they claim that it's impossible for them to do so unless they get to implement DRM via SOC to stop people from recording these movies. The MPAA's own defense of this plan was exceptionally weak, but now some others are actually coming forward to defend the MPAA's position.
Ryan Radia, over at the Tech Liberation Front, has a long and thoughtful article where he tries to paint the MPAA's position as being pro-market and anti-regulation: "Consumers are willing to pay to watch new movies at home, and content producers are willing to transmit them, but government is standing in the way." It's a neat twist, but it's 100% wrong. The government is not standing in the way. If consumers are willing to pay, the movie industry can absolutely offer up the movies and let them pay.
Radia's claim is based on the entirely false premise that the MPAA needs this special kind of gov't approved DRM in order to release its movies. Radia plays a neat trick in spinning this the other way, claiming: "But content owners aren't required to ensure that all movies can be easily timeshifted and archived." Yes, indeed, nor are movie studies required to use DRM.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the movie industry from making use of this "new business model" other than its own unsubstantiated fear of non-DRM'd content. It's not a government regulation. It's not some weird FCC rule. It's the MPAA itself.
Mark Cuban gets it right when he points out what a huge mistake the MPAA is making in even bringing this issue up in the first place:
For all the money the RIAA wasted on trying to stop digital piracy, about all they accomplished was explaining to everyone exactly where and how to steal music. Please do not make the same mistake. Right now its a hassle to unitlize the analog hole to copy movies. Most people have no idea how to do it, particularly for HD delivered movies. Please do not go through a big process of teaching people exactly what the analog hole is in hopes of getting companies to prevent its use. All you are going to do is turn on the lightbulb for many who would otherwise not have a clue.Piracy is not, and has never been, a real threat to the movie industry. The movie industry is doing incredibly well by releasing good movies that people want to see. Even if they're available for unauthorized download, movie watching is a social experience, and the better the industry makes that social experience, the better it will do. Wasting time demanding unnecessary DRM isn't necessary. It's not blocking any business model. Wasting money fighting for this "analog hole" to be patched won't stop piracy at all. If anything, it will attract more attention to that analog hole, while pissing off more viewers and making it that much harder to get movie fans to want to pay money to see movies. Even if the MPAA prevails, it won't put a dent into unauthorized file sharing. People will figure out how to get around the SOC protection, and once a single copy is out there, it's everywhere. Focusing on stopping file sharing is a lose-lose proposition.
The theatrical exhibition industry just experienced a phenomenal several weeks with The Dark Knight setting record after record. People by the 10s of millions went to the theater, many multiple time to enjoy the unique experience of going to a movie. Could you please, please, please use the money you are going to spend fighting the unfightable and instead spend it on promoting the fun of going to the movies ? More people going to the movies is more people getting excited about movies. More people getting excited about movies means more people watching movies on TV, which is good for revenues, and more people buying DVDs or legal downloads of the movies. Again, good for revenues.
So, please, movie industry, stop pretending you need DRM for your business models. You don't. You never have. And the more you pretend you do, the more trouble you're causing.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The problem with the RIAA fools is that these are the uncreative people who can do nothing better than complain about every penny they never could have gotten from pirates in the first place.
The beauty of television and radio was that it was free advertising for their wares. The problem is that they started to view this advertising channel as a profit center. Profit centers are seen to be exploited to the last cent and damn all the sales that they don't get from the people who never hear the product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pirates do not need an analog hole
Closing the "analog hole" only annoys potential customers who do not own the compatible equipment or who want to time shift the content. The pirates will hack High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) if they have not hacked it already.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It is with increasing frequency that the MPAA wants to plug the consumer's analog hole. Heh heh, heh.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Will they ever get it?
The only people that all of this DRM affects is the people that pay for it all the time. Willingly. DRM just makes those people mad. The rest of the world will always find a way to get around any DRM. Period, end of story. DRM will never work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yeah, yeah.
"Piracy is not, ..., a real threat to the movie industry" - Mike
And robbery is not a real threat to the banking business either. I wonder why.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yeah, yeah.
two separate issues. stealing money or a sandwich prevents someone else from having it. copying a whole bunch of 1s and 0s that form something doesn't do anything to the original, both people get to enjoy the sandwich.
also it has been shown that people copying movies and series has helped those make money, Firefly (and serenity), Heroes, and many movies have received huge boosts in sales because people copy the show and then tell their friends.
I would never have seen firefly without downloading, but now that I have, I not only bought the series and movie for myself, I've bought and encouraged others to buy the series. the same is true for heroes, if I wasn't able to download the first few episodes so I knew what was going on, I probably never would have enjoyed the series because I hate not having the full story, now I own Season 1, we watched it marathon style with friends and now we can't wait for the rest to come out on DVD and look forward to the series starting on TV again.
it cost the studio nothing for me to download the show and in fact gained them lots of money due to all of the people I've introduced to it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yeah, yeah.
Except once again you choose to IGNORE the FACT that an actual robbery at a bank is not the same thing as Piracy since no physical goods are stolen and no physical people are directly involved.
You are not a very strong shill for the MPAA/RIAA are you? A pile of dog poop has better talking points than you do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yeah, yeah.
I'm sorry, but in your attempt to make a clever point by drawing a parallel between movie downloading, and bank robbery, you've overlooked a very crucial detail:
When it comes to downloading, the content being "stolen" is purely digital which means the supply is essentially infinite. Downloading a movie is not comparable to physically taking money from a bank, because there is a finite amount of money.
When you are downloading, the industry you are supposedly "stealing" from, does not directly lose anything. The only thing they may stand to lose is the PROBABILITY that you would've bought the movie in question, had you not been able to download it.
But as there is no solid evidence that the downloader would've even considered buying the movie legally to begin with, there is effectively no loss in profit whatsoever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You're wrong, Mike:
They DO need DRM if they live in branded communities.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Let them spend their money on it. Only people who don't know how to get around their blocks are worried. As a long-time online pirate, I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty that as soon as you put something up, people will clamor to be the first to pull it down, and then publicize it as much as possible to get the credit for it. I never, ever, ever worry about anti-piracy checks. It's worth 2 hours surfing the net for the crack to be able to download unlimited titles for free forever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
Mike, I agree with your point that MPAA's war on piracy with escalating DRM is ultimately futile. But for whatever reason, content owners are uncomfortable releasing "high-value" content on analog outputs.
The real question is, is banning DRM something we want government to be doing?
Imagine if iTunes' FairPlay DRM were prohibited. Some major record labels would invariably stop selling their songs online, forcing consumers to go out and rip CDs the old-fashioned way. The labels could just release DRM-free tracks, but for whatever reason, some of them "just won't."
Or what if the FCC had blocked AACS? Blu-Ray might never have been developed and we might still be watching plain old DVDs. If allowing DRM is necessary to give content owners the "comfort level" to develop new business models, it's beside the point to argue that they could simply release that content without copy protection.
I'm not saying that content owners' fears are rational--in many cases, they're downright baseless--but if a company is willing to sell a product with DRM attached, and a consumer is willing to pay for that product, what justification is there for government to block that transaction?
Government doesn't stifle DRM technology when implemented in movies, music, or video games. And--in spite of this-- consumers have hardly suffered (aside from anti-circumvention laws). The FCC has interpreted a 1996 statute as giving it the authority to block DRM in this case, creating an exception to government's usual role in DRM skirmishes.
We shouldn't let our hatred for DRM blind us to the fact that government should not be in the business of deciding whether a DRM model should be allowed to exist. If you don't like DRM'd content, don't buy it. At the end of the day, consumer demand is what will shape the future of multimedia content. Take the recent emergence and growing ubiquity of DRM-free songs.
Let the MPAA try its hand at selling us new movies that only work on HDCP-enabled outputs. Perhaps consumers won't bite, and MPAA's plan will crash and burn. Or maybe, just maybe, people will decide that avoiding the hassle and cost of the movie theater is worth dealing with some silly DRM requirements.
Of course, this whole debate is mucked up by the horrible anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. Repeal Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, and perhaps "Big Content" will finally give up on DRM for good. But maybe they'll keep trying, and that's their right.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yeah, yeah.
And robbery is not a real threat to the banking business either. I wonder why.
Bank robbery represents a real loss.
There is no bank that takes a robbery and turns it into a positive.
Yet there are tons of content providers who have turned "piracy" to their own advantage.
Thus, it's quite clear that it's a business model issue, not a threat.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm going to have to agree with Ryan's article on this one. The fact is, DRM isn't something that should be banned or required by the FCC. If the MPAA only wants to transmit their content using DRM, then that should be their right.
Granted, I think their desire to cling on to DRM is a horribly stupid business move, but a move they should have the right to make. Let them invest the money in developing and implementing these futile technologies. We'll all still get our DRM-free pirated copies with far less hassle than if we paid for the legit version. The more difficult they make it for the average Joe to enjoy legitimate content, the more average Joes will resort to piracy. God knows why they can't figure this out.
I, for example, have no problem paying for content, but since I'm a 100% Linux user I just don't have that option because of DRM. Whatever, their loss.
Basically, let them shoot themselves in the foot, the FCC should have no power, or obligation, to stop them. The RIAA and MPAA are a sinking ship in the tides of technology and are clinging on for dear life. I personally find it rather amusing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How the RIAA would stop bank robberies..
by making everyone come in to the bank naked...
bank robberies have a minimal impact on the earnings and insurance rates of banks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Idiotic problem
They want this sort of bs in place so they can get you to (hopefully) pay multiple times, once to see it on some sort of pay-per-view at home, and then later when the dvd comes out later on.
Fat chance. Grow up MPAA .., grow some balls and stop trying to hide behind artificial blocks to prop up what you think is a cool way to squeeze more money out of people for the SAME THING.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I've also been a long-time pirate (early/mid 80's on the ol' C64) Couldn't agree more.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
The government does not have jurisdiction over many of the other examples you provided. The FCC does have jurisdiction over broadcasts, however, and they set the standards for those broadcasts. Part of that standard is that they are not going to allow DRM. It's one of the few things that the government has gotten right in the IP realm.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
no, please do
I want the MPAA to introduce more DRM to the movies I try to enjoy. That quarter-hour my computer spends shredding and ripping through the pointless encryption is very productive. It gives me time to fine tune the picture and sound in my 144" projection, 1000W 8.1 channel surround sound home theater and make sure I'll have enough drinks and popcorn available for the whole movie. So please, decrease compatibility, constrict your fan base, lower profits, and make it as troublesome as possible to enjoy movies. All the people willing to line up around the block, several times, and pay through the nose for every version, cut, edition, and release of a movie really appreciate everything you do for them.
In spite of the MPAA's pointless exercises I seek out good movies to enjoy such as Dark Knight and the upcoming remake of Death Race. Oh yes, it is a remake but I like the original so much, I will see the new version.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"I've also been a long-time pirate (early/mid 80's on the ol' C64)" - Greg
Greg, why not show your convictions by publishing your real name and address and listing the name of all those copied works you have pirated? You will have lots of defenders in court later on as they will be other like-minded posters here by openly testify on your behalf and swearing that you have made those from whom you have pirated copyrighted richer, not poorer. Good luck, Greg. I am looking forward to following your court case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
Ryan, did u read the same article as me? Who said anything about gov'ment banning DRM? Get yer head out of your branded community..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
What a tool
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
FCC rules stemming from the 1996 Telecommunications Act prohibit activation of Selectable Output Control unless a waiver is granted. So, yes, the government is banning DRM, as federal regulation prohibits MPAA from copy-protecting new release movies by closing the analog hole.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
He won't get my support. Though I happily support the idea of digital content being made freely available, I do not support the idea of violating the actual terms made available for any particular digital content. If a copyright holder wants to tightly hold the reins of their content, then all the power to them. I won't support others violating those tight terms, but I likely won't support that copyright holder's business model either.
I strongly suspect that others in this forum feel the same way. A few have posted such in past threads.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
The real question is, is banning DRM something we want government to be doing?
I don't see it that way at all. To me, it looks more like the MPAA is asking the FCC to regulate that they can degrade a consumer electronics device by disallowing it from doing stuff that consumers bought it to do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
let em
let em switch it on, it will hurt sales of DVRs somewhat, more people will stick with other analogue stuff, or capture cards.
HDCP? let em push that, once one reasonably popular device is cracked they can disable it, and kill sales of the hardware and be sued, or leave it alone and realise how pointless it was
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
FROM STORY:As we noted, the movie studios basically would like to add in another movie release window, letting movies appear on television before they're released on DVD. Of course, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so today. However, they claim that it's impossible for them to do so unless they get to implement DRM via SOC to stop people from recording these movies.
Most everyone had a VCR in the early 80's. At that time there was never this issue. You could record just about what ever you wanted. If you broke the law (Pirating, bootlegs, etc) you could pay fines or whatever..
But now 28 years later the FCC is being asked to block your hardware from recording? Bah, Sounds like to me this just an attempt to first get you go to see the movie, then rent it on tv, then rent it in the video store, then eventually buy the movie. Why should the government be used so these industries can maximize profits. Seems a little unfair to me.
I am sure the MPAA would like to force people to pay for a movie every time you watch it. But it seems a little unrealistic to me. Imagine if you had to pay a fee everytime you wanted to use software. How much money do they want to see a simple movie. Geez...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Cubans full of shit!
Every time I try to DVR any of his "Sneak Preview" movies that he runs on HDNet before they are released in theaters, nothing show up on my DVR...Somehow my DVR just "forgets" to record it, it has happened twice now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The problem with that stance is that their demands mean that they get to regulate technology and cripple innovative new products. They get to tell the device manufacturers how to build the devices that I purchase, and that gives them way too much control over the market for said devices.
DRM needs to go. It is harmful to the industry, and it is even more harmful to the public. If the government can actually understand that and take what steps they can to stop it in the markets they can control, then I think they should. I am not for big government or government interference. However, this is a case where an industry is trying to write its own laws and stifle the innovation of a nation. They need to be put in their place, and I applaud the FCC for doing it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't think the 'social experience' argument really holds water. If you're going to sit in silence for ninety minutes watching a film, you might as well do it at home as in the cinema; social interaction is kind of hard when social taboos or sheer background noise make it hard to actually speak.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
you clearly never went to a movie with a date just to sit in the back and have fun or make out.
I suggest you try it sometime.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
The real question is, is banning DRM something we want government to be doing?
Well, then, ACTUALLY, shouldn't the real question be why consumer electronics companies need to obey SOC in the first place?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
In the early 80s, the movie industry was petrified of the VCR. They were convinced that people would not bother going to the theater to watch a movie when they could have it at home. So, they not only refused to release major movies on video, they also tried to block VCRs from being made, by suing Sony.
That lawsuit failed. Eventually, large numbers of pirated copies of new movies (such as E.T.) forced their hand. They dipped into releasing movies on video. You know what? It worked. People were happy to rent and buy movies on video *in addition to* seeing the movie at the theater. By the end of the 80s, movies that had either been flops (Twins) or moderate successes (Dirty Dancing) at the box office were making over $100m on video. In the DVD age, it's estimated that pretty much any movie will make a profit eventually, even if it was a massive flop.
Sadly, these fools have neither learned from their own experiences nor from those of the RIAA members within the same corporations. DRM will not work - as noted above, it only affects honest, paying customers and not the pirates. It's like those horrendous anti-piracy ads you see on DVDs. Pirates will never see them, paying customers have to sit through this unskippable, condescending advert on a disk they paid good money for. Eventually, they may decide to simply never buy the movie.
Ultimately, something will force the MPAA's hand, as has happened with the music industry. They'll experiment with different release structures and realise that there's separate markets for movies. The person going to the theater is not necessarily the same person who will be happy watching the movie on their TV. Some people are happy to watch movies on the big screen that they're already seen at home, because it's a totally different experience. They'll realise this and eventually come up with a business model that capitalises on this fact.
On the other hand, they might manage to convince the government to allow this kind of idiocy, in which case those new business methods are ignored and the studios lose money not only to "pirates" but to people who give up because they can't get the damn TV to play the movie they want...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
Most legitimately manufactured videotapes of commercial movies had an analog version of "DRM" included in the form of a "Macrovision" signal mixed in with the video.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
Most legitimately manufactured videotapes of commercial movies had an analog version of "DRM" included in the form of a "Macrovision" signal mixed in with the video.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
Yeah, but that didn't really work (I managed to bypass it most of the time as a kid). The most important part of the Macrovision signal was that it only attempted to stop copying, not playback - today's media tries to dictate which playback devices can be used. That's why it's failing - analog Macrovision didn't affect normal, paying users. Digital DRM does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All part of the same business model...
It is incredible that lots of people here insist that some laws should only apply to this and not that. That just because money or sandwiches are things and digital data is infinite THEN one cannot be stolen and the other can.
There is NO difference between a house, a car, a sandwich, money (on notes and coins OR on an internet bank), a DVD, a film or a computer file. All these things were made by someone OR belong to someone OR can be accessed through someone OR has its access controlled by someone.
It just happens that somethings are easier to do than others. It may be virtually impossible to prevent someone to photocopy a book and give it to someone else. OR to build all cars with a top speed that never go beyond the local speed limit. That does not prevent the car manufacturers of spending millions in security devices a) you'll never need if you drive carefully (but paid for it anyway) and b) may be useless or not if you hit a tree at 200mph.
That's why the insurance of a Ferrari does not cost the same as Honda Civic. It costs 10 times more.
Should a ticket for THE DARK KNIGHT cost 10x the ticket for that French film nobody cares to see?
Of course, not. We would hate that. Most films cost the same ticket price (and even DVD prices have standards). And in the free market, anyone can make a film and sell it as the best film ever. The audience will always feel disappointed sometimes. That's how it is: like in restaurants... you eat, you pay - regardless of you liked the food or not.
DRM may not be the best thing on Earth. But it is the future. Get used to it and learn to live with it because it is here to stay. Of course there will be always those who circumvent it. But it's going to be so hard, very few people will get it done right.
I produce films and I got lots of people on my payroll. Yes, I want all the money I can get from my work... and work of those on my payroll - because I have to pay them.
The movie industry is not evil. Stop treating an industry that gives you pleasure as evil. Stop treating pirates as heroes who steal from the rich in order to give to the poor. That's childish. The industry KNOWS the difference between content circulation that generates revenue (which is good) AND content circulation that hurts sales.
What most of you do not see is that a film is as important to its industry as a certain formula is to the pharmaceutical industry. We give away trailers and clips just as Pfizer gives samples. Why should we allow someone to consume our products for free at the time revenues are most critical?
I agree with the MPAA about the need for DRM if they believe there's a market for (paid) TV screening of the film BEFORE the DVD release. It is obvious to me that DRM is needed in that case otherwise the DVD sales performance will be compromised (and home video sales are a VERY important form of revenue).
If there's no DRM for that matter, there will be simply no move in that direction (the advanced TV screening, that is) because the movie industry is not dumb.
Some people here are saying DRM is horrible and it is worthless. No it isn't. I cannot see one single industry who does not care about security and access of the goods they produce.
Yes, there were movies before DRM and the industry was raking on money 70 years ago too... but that was before digital, game consoles, internet, P2P, home video and cheap pirate DVD copies sold for a dollar or two at the street.
DRM is here to stay. Embrace it.
Anyone care to comment?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: All part of the same business model...
Commenting on TechDirt isn't my day job, so I'll just make a few brief points.
There is NO difference between a house ... or a computer file.
Besides the obvious difference that you can't live in a computer file... Digital goods are infinite because giving it to someone doesn't diminish your own possession of it. If I give someone my car, I don't have a car. If I give someone an mp3, I still have my mp3 (until I decide to delete it). It costs approximately the same to make 1 billion mp3s as it does to make one, but making 1 billion sandwiches costs 1 billion times the resources. Do you begin to see where your argument fails?
Should a ticket for THE DARK KNIGHT cost 10x the ticket for that French film nobody cares to see?
Should it? Yeah, in a sense, it should. There's a lot more demand for it, after all. But if you raise the price, you'll stifle demand and turn people off. In a sense, a movie is a movie, and people will pay only so much before they decide it's not worth it. Theatres don't change their prices because they're better off charging a flat rate regardless off the content. It would be too much effort for too little gain otherwise.
That's how it is: like in restaurants... you eat, you pay - regardless of you liked the food or not.
Not true. If I order a steak and it's prepared wrong, I send it back. When I get the check, I only pay for one steak. If the meal is utterly horrible I speak to the manager, express my displeasure, and I leave; I don't care if I choked down half a baked potato, I'm not paying for that trash.
DRM may not be the best thing on Earth. But it is the future.
No it's not, precicely becauase it punishes paying customers. DRM doesn't hurt pirates; at best it slows them down. And you will always be competing with pirates -- the right move is not to make your product less useful than theirs. It's been shown that people will pay for good content even when it's available for free, but they WON'T pay if you make it too difficult for them. At best they won't consume your content at all; at worst you've created a new pirate.
The industry KNOWS the difference between content circulation that generates revenue (which is good) AND content circulation that hurts sales.
The industry THINKS they know, but they don't. They watch the first transaction and ignore all the ripple effects that come afterward. I know people who watched pirated Dark Knight and then went out to the theatres two or three times, with groups of friends, because it was that good. With movie prices being what they are, a lot of people are unwilling to buy sight-unseen.
I agree with the MPAA about the need for DRM
The is no need. There is a strong desire on their part, but it is not impossible to deliver content without DRM. They fear what might happen if they don't hold tight to their content, that's all. Even if I could record the Dark Knight to my DVR, there are LOTS of reasons to want the DVD, not the least being special features and additional commentary.
And that's really all I have to say about that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: All part of the same business model...
Dear SomeGuy:
ONE - "Besides the obvious difference..."
Physics is not the issue here. That house and that computer file (which contains a film) was made by someone and belongs to someone. The file in itself is irrelevant to this discussion because it is a simple vehicle to a work that is worth money (and that, like a house, as you admit, is not infinite). Send a blank computer file to someone and ask him if he wants to buy it. He won't because it contains nothing that is of any worth. Commerce exists because there's value in things. It has nothing to do with the physicality of things. You can buy virtual things with real money. Why? Because these physicless things have a function somewhere - therefore you cannot get them for free. Likewise, the digital movie we talk about may be endlessly reproduceable... but that fact alone does not mean that it does not have a real money value. So my argumentation does not fail. One thing is the file. The other is what that file contains. And what it contains gives you something (the experience of the film) for which you should pay.
TWO - "Should it? Yeah, in a sense, it should"
I'm sure you know there was a time when very different theaters had very different prices. I'm sure you also know there was a time when you could see two films for the price of one. These and many other practices are gone today because the evolution of the business meant treating every film the same way... with the thought that for every film there is audience of a certain size. And the more you think about it, the more it makes sense because it is the audience who gets the most out of it. In fact, countless films are made every year that benefit from the fact that they cost as much to be watched as a blockbuster (meaning that no audience is treated differently according to taste). Smaller films may get fewer screens... but give the theater the same price per ticket... otherwise, there would be no theater in the US right now that would NOT be showing THE DARK KNIGHT. I kid you not! Even at $20 per ticket!
The demand for THE DARK KNIGHT is huge... but the studio is not charging you $2 more for it on its first day. Is it? No.
THREE - "Not true. If I order a steak and..."
Please, you are not being reasonable. How many times have you done that? At which restaurants? Don't make me laugh. Tell me at which restaurant you're eating and I'll be there every day eating for free. LOL But you are confusing two things. One thing is a defective product. The other is your own personal taste. Get a projection without sound or some other technical problem and you can ask for your money back... or replace your faulty disc... that's standard procedure in commerce. But complain that you did not like the film and you'll never get your money back. Your steak example is no good because you DID NOT eat it. You tried the first bite and sent it back. You're still hungry, right? If you want to satisfy yourself, PAY in another restaurant or just eat the trash and PAY for it. Try eating the whole steak THEN complaining it's no good.
THE SAME THING WITH MOVIES... you've seen it, you must pay. It's a one-off purchase. Of course you can be unpleasant, noisy, yell some 10 f-words LOL and maybe the fancy restaurant manager will be better than you and pay you off with your own money. The theater manager will probably call the police. You chose. LOLOLOL
FOUR - "No it's not, precicely becauase..."
Well... point me to any study that says that most consumers will NOT buy something because of DRM. Most consumers probably don't even know what DRM is. And even if they do, they STILL want SPIDER MAN 3 or THE DARK KNIGHT. Better yet: how many of those who went running for the theaters the day TDK opened said "I refuse to see the film because I cannot have a quick peep on the internet copy I tried to download last night and could not find". None that we're aware of. On the contrary, by delaying piracy by some 36 hours or so, Warner Brothers managed to put on the theaters even people who hated the film and would never go see it in theaters had they had previous free access to it.
Want to see it? You should pay. If you like it or not... it's your problem. You want a Ferrari? Pay for it. Got no money and feel not happy with your Honda Civic? Well, there are other cheap cars. Have quick drive on all before you decide (like in movie trailers). But no one will give you a free car. And if someone does... well... good for you!
And which study has shown that people will pay for what's free? (please don't post links to websites quoting quotations) Which people? Which content? I hope, for your sake that you are not talking about music. As you know the film and the music industry have many, many differences. REM may well put ten songs for free and call it "an album". But we're talking about films here. Not movies.
FIVE - "The industry THINKS they know..."
Well... we are certainly not talking about the same industry. And one thing about people who went to to see the film multiple times: the industry loooves that people. Some of them even get freebies. Those people are the least of the industry's worries. LOL
SIX - "The is no need. There is a strong desire..."
As you said, YOU will buy the DVD anyway. But we are not talking about you. We are talking about the ones who are not as fabulous as you. That's all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: All part of the same business model...
One: I never disputed value. You said there was no difference, I proved you wrong. If you woiuld like to QUALIFY what "no difference" means that's another story.
Two: I don't see how anything you said contradicts the point I made. I think it should cost more, but it doesn't because of various factors. It COULD cost more, and people would still see it; you admitted that yourself. So what's your point?
Three: You'd have to explain what you mean by "reasonable." I think I have every right to demand quality, and thus far have had no trouble making such demands or being satisfied. Where I eat doesn't matter, the same rules apply; I'm as willing to send back a Whopper as I am a meal at a 4-star restraunt if my standards aren't met.
Regardless... I may have only eaten one steak, but I 'cost' them two. Or does that not count? The trouble with waiting until you finish a meal to complain about it, though, has more to do with the increased difficulty of arguing that you weren't satisfied. One typically doesn't finish a meal one is dissatisfied with.
The same with movies, and as a point of fact I have left movies early and demanded my money back and gotten it. And I'm not so crass as to throw myself into an expletive-laden rage about it. You can be stern without stooping to that level. I don't see how demanding quality product is unreasonable.
Four: My day job also doesn't involve trolling for studies on consumer behavior which may or may not exist, so I'll pass on your challenge, thanks. Perhaps Mike Masnick can satisfy you there? Anyways, it doesn't matter if consumers know what DRM is, they'll notice when they can't play your product on their TV. They'll notice when your product isn't compatible with their new toy. They'll notice whenever they try to do something they feel is reasonable with your product andf DRM stops them. You're right, though, they will still want Spider-Man 3 (Really? You chose that garbage as your horse in this race?). The problem is, yours isn't the only game in town, and they can get DRM-free stuff from the pirates. That hurts you. But the product that they get from the pirates is better for the consumer because it will work on their TV, it will work with their toys, and it won't ever try to stop them from enjoying the content.
Quote: Warner Brothers managed to put on the theaters even people who hated the film and would never go see it in theaters
So... your big win in all of this is the ability to sell customers a product they don't want? That's what makes DRM and the entertainment industry so great?
Quote: But no one will give you a free car. And if someone does... well... good for you!
You make no sense.
And why is it that a digital movie is so much different from digital music that the two can't be compared? They're both entertainment, right? They both have value, right? Someone's trying to sell each of them, right? Why is it that the successes of digital music have no impact on digital movies?
Five: Again, I don't see your point. I argue that the industry ignores ripple effects, and you respond by saying that the industry loves people who see the same movie repeatedly. What's your point?
Six: I'm no great believer in the natural goodness of human beings, but I do believe there are things that DVDs can and do offer that a DVR recording can't capture. You can't record commentaries if they aren't broadcast. You don't need to trust in human goodness to sell people things.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: All part of the same business model...
ONE
Well... if you wanna get basic on this, ok, then, everything is different from everything. No, I cannot really live in a computer file. My God, how did I not see this...
Of course I wasn't talking about THAT obvious difference, was I? But if you did not understand the context in which I said that a house and a computer file containing a movie are the same thing... well... I won't insist.
TWO
I said that in all fields of business that I know of, companies get more protective the riskier the operation gets. And I gave the example of the insurance company who demands more money to cover a car that costs 10x the price of a regular one. The movie industry opts to protect itself from piracy so that it can keep their prices regardless of the cost of the film (treating all tastes equal). The opposite could be demanding more like insurance companies do. You say it would be too much trouble. I say more than just too much trouble, it would be offensive and it would have consequences nobody would like to see.
THREE
Exactly!!! Unreasonable is to tell me that a stake is prepared wrong. You tell me what that means... :P Wrong according to what? Your taste? Your "steak" example is SUBJECTIVE and does not fit in this discussion.
Now...
Order the stake that is supposed to be rare... and it comes burned. Is that what you mean by "prepared wrong"? A replacement is the most common practice... and you should not even ask for it twice. The same thing with a faulty disc: it's faulty and it must be replaced. Or the bad projection: get another ticked for free. But do not complain about the film because the film is alright and you should pay to see it. The steak is alright and you should pay to eat it. No difference. You pay to eat a steak as you pay to watch a film (even being the film a string of 0 and 1). No difference. The preparation is like the projection or the pressing of the disc: something bad may happen and you get a replacement...
...but the replacement does not depend on your liking. Even return policies tell you that. Amazon, for example, is clear: you cannot return, for example, downloadable software products (because they will be used). Even DVDs and CDs although accepted won't give you full refund (because you've seen them) unless it's defective.
If "prepared wrong" means defective, of course you should complain. It it means something else, then it has no place here because (with very few exception) nothing has its price based on how you rate the ownership, consumption or experience of it. Try asking the airline for a refund just because the trip was boring.
FOUR
Your question: "your big win in all of this is the ability to sell customers a product they don't want?" LOLOLOL Did Warner Brothers dragged anyone to the theaters? No. No employee from WB was pointing a gun at anyone at the theater. If they do not want to see the film, why did they go to see it then?
Please, tell me. :P
It was not because of the air conditioning. If they went to the theater I GUESS (it is just a guess) it was because they wanted to see the movie.
Then pay the price. Those who do not want see the film won't see it. Period. DRM was not made for them.
Your question: "That's what makes DRM and the entertainment industry so great?" My answer: I think you are misreading everything. The great thing about the film industry is that it gives you great pleasure for a price few industries can match.
The problem is that some people - no matter how reasonable the price - prefer to steal instead of paying. I haven't seen TDK yet, but of course it can well be a great film. BUT even those who hate it must pay IF they want to see it. Or are you suggesting that only those who like it should pay?
FIVE
Your question: "And why is it that a digital movie is so much different from digital music that the two can't be compared? They're both entertainment, right?" I'm sorry, but the explanation for this one is too long. I'd love to explain, but not here. But let me tell you this: how much do you think it costs REM to produce ten songs and put them online for free? And how much do you think a moderate budgeted film cost? There's a huge difference. Why do you think Madonna left Warner? Do films make live concerts? How much does a Madonna ticket cost? how much do you think it cost to put a REM song in a film?
You don't have to answer any of those. They are there just to signal some of the huge differences there are between the music and movie industry. Opera, theater, books... all are entertainment too... and they are all very different.
SIX
Here we fully agree. I'm not a believer on goodness either (otherwise I'd be a priest, not a producer). Yes, TV will not give you what the DVD does. Like you, I feel the same. But others may disagree... they will record the movie and sell them as regular DVDs MAYBE even fooling those who think they are getting the legitimate thing (it's called counterfeiting).
DRM is there to protect the money YOU spent on the real thing. Why will you allow someone else to have for free the thing you had to pay for?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
One: I can only respond to what you say. You had said "no difference," so I responded to "no difference." Even at that, I dispute your claim that they are the same in any real respect. They may both have value, but they have value for very different reasons, and they have very different natures.
Two: You said no such thing, but I can understand now how that might have been what you were thinking. Still, I can only respond to what you say. Regardless, I still hold that the defenses the industry are taking against piracy are ill-thoughtout and non- or counter-productive. DRM doesn't stop piracy and it does irritate legitimate customers. DRM makes pirated products more valuable than legitimate copies. You don't win the race by making the other guy's stuff better.
Three: I walked out of The Hulk and demanded my money back because it was a horrible film. (The first one; I liked Norton's.) I got cash. Not a free ticket, I got my money back. This isn't a unique experience for me nor for many other people I know. Now, you're right that you don't always get cash back, and it depends on the theatre, and definitely it's a different matter if the film is defective... But I still hold that the analogy to a restraunt holds and all my points stand. If you wait until after the movie ends to complain, that's the same as eating the meal and then demanding your money back, with similar difficulties.
The airliner quip doesn't fit, though. A movie, and in many respects a meal out at a restraunt, has value because of the enjoyment of the experience. A plane trip has value because it moves you from point A to point B. You can complain about an unpleasant meal just as you could complain if your plane landed at point C rather than point B: the quality of the product is lacking in such a way as to diminish the VALUE of the product.
Four: Your quote indicated that Warner was able to get money from people "who hated the film and would never go see it in theaters." Now you claim that if they went there it's because they wanted to see the movie. But surely you must concede that they had no way to know if they wanted to see the movie before they had paid. (Previews and trailers are very often misleading, look at anything M. Shyamalan has done.) So you're proud that you're taking money from people who don't like your product without giving them a fair chance to determine that.
Five: Perhaps you have a point, I can't really say. Still, ticket sales, DVD sales, TV broadcasts are not the only way movies make money. Nor do those go away if DRM is not enforced. Nor is it fact that movies must cost as much as they do to produce. So if I may be lacking a bit of an insider's eye on the issue, I would propose that you're starting from faulty premises anyways.
Six: It's no skin off my nose if someone enjoys something for free. If I paid for it then I felt it was worth the price, and finding it cheaper (even free) elsewhere doesn't bother me. It only bothers me if I felt it WASN'T worth the price I paid, and even then I'm mad at the producer, not other consumers. DRM is made to protect the producer from having to put extra effort into making their product worth the price they want it listed at. If you're the only show in town you can charge what you want. With Pirates around, you AREN'T the only show, and DRM is a misguided attempt to fight the competition.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All part of the same business model...
SIX
Here we fully agree. I'm not a believer on goodness either (otherwise I'd be a priest, not a producer). Yes, TV will not give you what the DVD does. Like you, I feel the same. But others may disagree... they will record the movie and sell them as regular DVDs MAYBE even fooling those who think they are getting the legitimate thing (it's called counterfeiting).
DRM is there to protect the money YOU spent on the real thing. Why will you allow someone else to have for free the thing you had to pay for?
here is where your argument falls apart. it has been shown time and time again that DRM does not stop piracy. I challenge you to mention a DRM process that hasn't been beaten. heck try naming one that lasted a few months without being cracked, most don't last a week.
all DRM does is make it harder for the average user to use what they legally paid for the way they want. if someone buys a DVD and wants to convert it onto their portable video device, they should be able to, it harms no one. the industry just wants people to pay for the same thing multiple times. there is no reason joe blow down the street should have to buy the DVD for his DVD players and then download the DRM-loaded version onto his computer and then buy a third version for his portable video player just to use something he paid for the way he wants.
we have laws in place that can target pirates, drm does nothing to stop or slow pirates, and using pirates as a reason you *need* drm just shows you aren't nearly as in touch as you think you are.
btw (and this is not related to the above whatsoever), lots of people do give away stuff they make, from bands, to independent film makers, to people like me, software developers. I give away most of the programs I write because I wrote them thinking that people would find them useful. some donate money, some don't, but I've been contacted many times by people who saw my free software and wanted to pay me to make something specific. that sort of thing happens in all the fields, if the stuff you do is good, people notice and will pay money .
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Greg, why not show your convictions by publishing your real name and address...
By the way Scorpiaux, what's your's?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: All part of the same business model...
It is incredible that lots of people here insist that some laws should only apply to this and not that. That just because money or sandwiches are things and digital data is infinite THEN one cannot be stolen and the other can.
No. No one is saying that something can be stolen. They're saying that if a product is *infinite* then the supply curve suggests there are other business models that embrace that infinite nature in a way that is helpful.
There is NO difference between a house, a car, a sandwich, money (on notes and coins OR on an internet bank), a DVD, a film or a computer file. All these things were made by someone OR belong to someone OR can be accessed through someone OR has its access controlled by someone.
There is a HUGE difference, which is that the supply of the first group is scarce. The supply of the second group is not.
And, as your basic economics should have taught you, supply is a big part of determining price.
Should a ticket for THE DARK KNIGHT cost 10x the ticket for that French film nobody cares to see?
You seem to be under the wrong impression that the supplier sets the price, rather than the market. That might explain why you don't seem to understand supply and demand either.
DRM may not be the best thing on Earth. But it is the future. Get used to it and learn to live with it because it is here to stay. Of course there will be always those who circumvent it. But it's going to be so hard, very few people will get it done right.
The history of any sort of artificial protectionist system says that you are 100% wrong. Not a single one has ever stuck around for very long -- because others eventually learn how to embrace the non-artificially-restrained market to their advantage.
And then, those of you relying on artificial scarcity see your business models disintegrate.
Have you note noticed that both the software industry and (finally!) the music industry are moving away from DRM?
I produce films and I got lots of people on my payroll. Yes, I want all the money I can get from my work... and work of those on my payroll - because I have to pay them.
Which part of the business model did you not understand? You are falsely assuming that DRM is necessary to make money. It's not.
The movie industry is not evil. Stop treating an industry that gives you pleasure as evil.
No one said they're evil. Short-sighted? Yes. Clueless about economics? Yes. Self-destructive? Yes. Evil? No.
Stop treating pirates as heroes who steal from the rich in order to give to the poor.
We're not doing that either. Don't make silly assumptions. We're pointing out that those of you in your industry can actually EMBRACE these trends to DO BETTER and MAKE MORE MONEY by NOT treating your biggest fans as criminals.
The industry KNOWS the difference between content circulation that generates revenue (which is good) AND content circulation that hurts sales.
It's become quite clear that many in the industry do NOT know that difference. Study after study after study has shown that your industry has gotten it wrong repeatedly.
What most of you do not see is that a film is as important to its industry as a certain formula is to the pharmaceutical industry. We give away trailers and clips just as Pfizer gives samples. Why should we allow someone to consume our products for free at the time revenues are most critical?
Because if allowing those people to consume for free INCREASES demand for a different aspect of your business model, you come out ahead.
I agree with the MPAA about the need for DRM if they believe there's a market for (paid) TV screening of the film BEFORE the DVD release. It is obvious to me that DRM is needed in that case otherwise the DVD sales performance will be compromised (and home video sales are a VERY important form of revenue).
Hilarious. This is from the industry that once insisted that the home video market was "the boston strangler" of the movie industry. But it "knows" when something helps and when something hurts, right?
Yeah... ok...
If there's no DRM for that matter, there will be simply no move in that direction (the advanced TV screening, that is) because the movie industry is not dumb.
Until some more thoughtful and future-looking studio decides to embrace a better business model, does the earlier screenings, and the rest of you look lost. That'll be fun.
Some people here are saying DRM is horrible and it is worthless. No it isn't. I cannot see one single industry who does not care about security and access of the goods they produce.
Then you don't look very hard.
Yes, there were movies before DRM and the industry was raking on money 70 years ago too... but that was before digital, game consoles, internet, P2P, home video and cheap pirate DVD copies sold for a dollar or two at the street.
And yet you expect that it's consumers who need to change rather than the industry? Sorry, that's not how marketplaces work.
DRM is here to stay. Embrace it.
Infinite goods are hear to stay. Embrace it, or perish.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
Sure, the FCC prohibits DRM, but the DMCA prohibits DRM-circumvention. Removing the former prohibition would amount to asking for DRM to be mandated. So, you asking for the government not to interfere is really nothing more than a charade. Yes, I agree, the government should not be blocking your idiotic and futile desire for DRM—as long as it doesn’t also block the market from competing healthily in the area of Selectable-Output-Control–circumvention. Get the DMCA repealed and then come back to us, Ryan.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember the days of VHS & Beta?
Also to add on to want PaulT said. In this case the government is being asked to intervene and force its agenda on everyone. In the case of the manufactured videotapes they are completely within their rights to do this. The manufacture can put whatever they want on their product. If you dont like it, you dont have to buy the product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM may be futile, but government should not block it.
I'll do my best, David!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Regarding the bank robbing comparison
A lil late in the game, I know, but comparing robbing a bank, a CRIMINAL action where lives are perhaps put in danger, to copying a file, a potential CIVIL infraction is probably the oldest and most ignorant pro-DRM arguement out there.
Like I said, I might be late in the thread here, but you are most certainly late in the discussion... by about 15 years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
ONE
The context under which we are all discussing is the MPAA's desire to have DRM put on films they want to show on TV before they hit home video. And some people are against DRM while I understand and agree with the need for some DRM.
Having said this, I think it is clear that when I say that a house, a car, a doll, a T-shirt, a DVD and a digital file of the movie are the same thing, I'm not talking about the obvious differences (as you point, I cannot live in a file) nor I am saying the REALLY are the same thing in EVERY respect.
But regardless of that, you and I disagree. For me, it is irrelevant if in other contexts (nature, function, reason, etc) all things may be different. In this particular context (the producer's concern with the protection of his market), for me, there's no difference between them: they are all subjects of commerce, they all have a value and all must be protected from illegal or unauthorized use in some way. You may disagree. It's fine.
TWO
You're right. I did not say that. I thought my idea, although implicit, was clear enough. I'm sorry. But if you understood it, good. Now... about the defenses, again we disagree: I think DRM is not the most friendly thing, but today it is a sad necessity. For three main reasons: a) digital copying is too easy and cheap b) the natural evolution of the film industry (lead by consumers and competition) demands more control over distribution and c) the films in themselves must be protected from utilizations that will harm the author's rights (intellectual AND financial).
You are mistaken if you believe the goal of DRM is to stop piracy. That's as unachievable as preventing all car crashes from causing deaths. But all automakers keep the goal and car security keeps evolving. The real objective of DRM is a) to make it so hard to do an unauthorized copy that only a few will try it (at a forbidding cost) and b) the end experience will be so compromised that few people will care to actually endure such unauthorized utilization.
Now... yes, it has a price for the legitimate consumer. But I also believe such price is relatively low. I would love to be able to copy a CD to use in my car (where it will only last a few months until it's all scratched then i'll have to burn a new copy again)... but it is also true that some people also use that privilege to sell or give away copies of that CD - compromising the sales performance of the real legit CD.
Now... if a CD or a file cannot be copied, it is true I'm losing my privilege. But the pirate is losing it too. I STILL have alternatives. The pirate does not. I can copy a CD (and soon a film too) into my Ipod and use it in my car. Some Bly-ray discs come with a digital copy for my computer. that's another option.
I agree that with DRM, there will be some things I'll lose... like doing some funny re-editing on a STAR WARS film and placing it on YouTube. But I also believe the more DRM advances and evolves, the more rights we'll get in return. The film industry KNOWS that movies are not like software. There's a lot more to its enjoyment that just watch it. Although some people disagree with me, as a producer, I have nothing against YouTube (just as an example). The problem is that nobody has yet perfected DRM to a point where it will tell the difference (with accuracy) between an honest consumer and a pirate.
But, as I said, we're still at the infancy of DRM. So it's not perfect and it clashes with many things we do... but it's here to stay and film producers everywhere need consumer's input on how to make it better.
THREE
Well... you walked away from The Hulk? OK... you got your money back? Fine! That only means that the theater manager believes you and feels that you should get your money back. That's great and that's between you and him. But that's not the common practice. Maybe you left in the middle of the film... and you would have a different response if you had waited until the end. Should everybody who hated GIGLI ask their money back, theater managers would not be able to say yes... because there's a huge line of people to get paid at the end of the week.
FOUR
Well... let me put it this way: no studio has ever spent more money in marketing than they do today. Go to IMDB, yahoo, or google or any of 2000 movie sites online today and you'll see a HUGE array of clues about the film's characteristics (in relation to your taste): 1, 2, 3 or more teasers, trailers, clips, interviews, screenshots galore, dedicated websites... well... if that does not enlighten you, then there must be something wrong with you. Did you had that 20 years ago? NEVER!
And studios do that NOT to mislead you because they KNOW that as bad as no audience is the wrong audience. They do that so they make it clear to their target audience that the film is made for them.
That's business.
If that's what you are suggesting, I do NOT agree that you should be able to watch the film before deciding to pay for it. The risk of disappointment exists in equal share to both parties: producers and consumers. Prince Caspian cost 200 million to produce + 150 to market (=350 million) and so far made some disappointing 140 million JUST because Disney made the wrong decision of opening it squeezed between Iron Man and Indiana Jones. That's their mistake. Warner Bros thought Speed Racer, which I loved (120 million to produce + 80 to market) would be a smash for some strange reason. It's a huge flop. That's their mistake. Not yours. They pay the bill.
You saw the poster of Boogeyman and thought it was a great horror film. That's your risk. The distributor did the best to show you the best things the film has to offer. You believed. You pay the bill.
If after all the money spent on marketing trying to get teenagers into the theaters to watch American Pie or Superbad, a 70yo Mormon still thinks he wants to see the film... well... there's something wrong (and in that case, I'd be the first to urge the manager to give him his money back!!!)
This is business. You don't use the car for a year and only THEN decide if you want it or not. The best they can do is to let you drive it for 30 minutes. Is that fair? But strange enough, most people do a lot of research before buying a car (it's expensive, hm?). Why not do the same for movies?
What, for you, is a fair chance to evaluate a film?
FIVE
Let me quote you: "Perhaps you have a point, I can't really say. Still, ticket sales, DVD sales, TV broadcasts are not the only way movies make money."
Well... films are not all alike. Some make lots of money on these outlets and others. Other films (with smaller audiences) can barely breathe. Parts of the success and failure comes from quality, distribution, some luck, good or bad marketing and (of course) an audience who pays.
"Nor is it fact that movies must cost as much as they do to produce".
Well... certain films cost what they cost because the audience demands a certain degree of some quality that is expensive to produce. A spectacle like Titanic cost $300 million because the audience expected such spectacle. And it cost JUST $300 million because every Dollar was well used. If not, it would have cost $600m (and probably would have never been greenlit).
Movies cost what they cost because there's enough demand. Cheap films have to cost what they cost because... well... there's only such demand.
SIX
I disagree. I think it is offensive that someone has for free something that I do not. It is unfair that you have to pay for something while someone gets it through illegal or unethical means. It's okay to buy it cheaper at WalMart (I'd buy there too) or get a discount on a coupon. Or pay premium if you want it delivered at your door by a Playboy bunny. but these are all choices. Even if you get it for free as a freebie (and I do not), it's okay with me. But unauthorized copying of a disc for free (or whatever in the line) is offensive to those who paid a fair price. Apple agrees with me when lots of customers got angry knowing that a week after buying an iPod Touch (or was it the iPhone?) the price dropped $100 or more... and issued coupons with that amount of money to anyone who felt offended.
Again I disagree: DRM is NOT made to protect the producer from having to put extra effort into making their product worth the price they want it listed at. That's a myth. The films that get most pirated are EXACTLY the ones everybody wants to see. Quality is not really a factor because it is very subjective. Ingmar Bergman's last film or an Antonioni film from the 60's is not something that you find easily (it does not mean they do not need protection as well) because the audience is so small pirates do not waste time with them like they do with Iron