And, Once Again, Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money At The Box Office

from the and-yet-they-complain dept

For years, we've pointed out that as Hollywood kept insisting that piracy was killing its business, and all anyone would do is watch films for free at home, box office revenues kept increasing. 2011 was a slight blip -- in that US box office revenue dropped a tiny bit, even as the global box office set new records. And the drop in US box office was mainly due to a bunch of less than stellar movie options. So it's little surprise that this year, on the backs of things like The Avengers, the latest Batman and The Hobbit, the US box office is back on the rise. It's interesting to note that this year there's even an increase in number attending rather than just in revenue collected.

So, once again, we're left wondering two things. First, why does the industry keep insisting that piracy is killing it and second why has the theater industry still done so little to improve the movie going experience, to capture the clear interest in the public to go see movies in the theaters? Yes, some people will argue (as the MPAA likes to) that it's not the box office they're concerned about, but rather the home video market. But, really, that's pretty rich, given that it was less than 30 years ago, the very same MPAA was doing its damndest to make sure there was no home video market as it sought to kill off the VCR. That they should now be complaining that they can't make as much money there -- at the same time they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner -- reeks of just bad business, rather than any sort of existential threat.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 7:45am

    Nor exactly...

    That they should now be complaining that they can't make as much money there -- at the same time they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner -- reeks of just bad business, rather than any sort of existential threat.

    From the very start, this has been about control of markets through monopoly. Ever since Hollywood ran away from Thomas Edison, they have worked to control markets through law, collusion, or threats.

    We've heard that they can't treat actors fairly or pay them proportionately based on their performances.

    The musicians and composers have lost on copyright based on how record labels control their work and take away their venues.

    Writers have been screwed by the Author's Guild who fights for more copyright over their interests.

    Finally, the public had green screwed since 1976, when copyright was strengthened to diminish the public domain and bar people from telling stories with new music, movies, and games based on old material. For every remix that people wanted, there is a maximalist trying to underscore what copyright's true purpose is: control.

    You can't control a million people. But controlling their access to new technology and maintaining that control had been the aim and it's failing.

    I don't know if that fragile monopoly will maintain for any longer. It seems more likely that the more people look into copyright issues, the less inclined people are to support copyright monopolies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    I wonder how much impact the "taking down" of Megaupload had in all this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 7:57am

    30 years ago, the very same MPAA was doing its damndest to make sure there was no home video market as it sought to kill off the VCR.

    I really don't understand this argument that you oft repeat. If the VCR hadn't come out, surely another home video player would have with movies supplied by the studios. You assume that no one would have had any way to watch videos at home. I can't imagine that ever would have happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      "You assume that no one would have had any way to watch videos at home. I can't imagine that ever would have happened."

      And you assume it would have been allowed at all. They wanted to block the VCR because it was going to be a piracy epidemic free-for-all. Now, take that mentality and try and properly extrapolate consistently, rather than just take an opposing point of view from Mike for argument's sake.

      If the VCR had been blocked, anything else would have too. It's really not that hard to see. Unless of course you're a wanna be lawyer in training apparently.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, they were worried about a home RECORDER. Not a home PLAYER. See the difference? Mike's argument is just stupid. His rebuttal to the studios' current concern about piracy is to bring up the VCR--that obviously doesn't address the point.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          CK20XX, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The distinction between a home player and a home recorder is moot because history has already played out there. Video recorders became a phenomenon, and not only did they not kill off the television or movie markets, but they actually brought new life to them by allowing customers to do more with them. Giving more choice and freedom to the customers causes them to show more interest in businesses and markets.

          Thus, with history backing them up, people look at the internet piracy scene and say that's going to play out the same way VCRs did. It's not much of a stretch to make that conclusion.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The VCR is to the movie business as the Boston Strangler is to a woman at home alone." - MPAA chief.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          weneedhelp, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The natural progression for consumers would be a recordable/playable medium for video as we already had it for audio for years.

          At the time if you would have introduced a player only device the consumer would have rejected it as it did not record as well.

          Remember laserdisk?

          It was this wonderful device that let you record shows to be watched at a later time. It was one of the first devices that let consumers have control over when/where we consumed content. Thats why it had to be stopped.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, they were worried about a home RECORDER. Not a home PLAYER.

          Yes, they were. Just like they were worried about cassette tapes and home taping. Just like they were worried about CD-Rs. Just like they were worried about DVD-Rs. Just like DVD jukeboxes, or breaking DVD encryption, mp3s, and user generated content sites, Youtube, streaming music and movies and Hulu, Aereo, or whatever the next dozen innovations they'll try to kill, tax, or control to no good end.

          How many do we have to name before you get it?

          Every single fucking time they have been proven completely and utterly wrong. Wrong about the facts. Wrong about the results. Wrong for the wrong reasons.

          There is an elephant in the room and you keep trying to hand wave it away.

          You have to be willfully blind not to see this. You're not stupid, Joe. But either you are intentionally ignoring things just because they don't suit your viewpoint, or because Mike is the messenger, or because you're naive. Take your pick.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Except for the fact that all of those were indeed used for pirating.

            Sounds to me like he was a prophet.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That is kind of the point. All of those things were used for piracy, but the entertainment industry increased revenue, using them.

              If your goal is to stop piracy, then yes, you would want to stop those technologies. But, if your goal is to make money, then you need to embrace those technologies.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          anon, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I see the difference, they wanted full control and it was fought against and the citizens won, now i understand they would not have been against a player as they could sell content many many times over which was found by the lawmakers to be unacceptable so Mike is right in this regard and used the term vcr correctly, but if you are just looking to blame him for something well that is up to you , nobody else sees it and that is why your comment is marked as irrelevant.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:08am

      Re:

      You must be a young'n.

      The MPAA fought the VCR not to stop that specific technology, but to stop the home movie market from eating into theater revenue. Yes, if the MPAA had won, we would not have an alternative.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re:

        Right. They would never have wanted to have home movies in everyone's home video PLAYER. You guys are so blinded by your hate of the MPAA (Mike most especially) that it's amusing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          No No.. They wanted no Players or Recorders.
          They wanted to force the consumers in to the theaters.

          And even you have admitted in the past that it is pretty easy to be angry with the MPAA.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They wanted no Players or Recorders.

            I love it when the freetards just pull made-up shit out of their ass.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              silverscarcat (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:38am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I love it when the copyright maximilists just pull made-up shit out of their ass."

              You and me both.

              Anyway, Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA during the 1970s and 1980s did his level best to kill the VCR. I have posted the appropriate quotes on this page, just search for "Jack Valenti" to see what I said.

              And you know who stopped the Supreme Court and Congress from ruling against the VCR?

              Mr. Rodgers.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              drewdad (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Don't be a theaterd.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          *Points to my other post*

          The MPAA specifically stated that the Home Video Player, or rather, the VCR, was going to kill movies like the Boston Strangler killed women.

          You know who saved the VCR?

          Mr. Rogers.

          He went to Congress and said that the VCR was a good thing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Good point. That is why the MPAA was always supportive of other alternatives to the VCR that only had playing capability. Heck, they even developed their own devices and made them available to the mass market.

          Oops...sorry. For a minute I thought we were on a different reality were what you said made sense. Never mind what I said.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          silverscarcat (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          In fact, joe...

          "During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Jack Valenti became notorious for his flamboyant attacks on the Sony Betamax Video Cassette Recorder (VCR), which the MPAA feared would devastate the movie industry. He famously told a congressional panel in 1982, "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Despite Valenti's prediction, the home video market ultimately came to be the mainstay of movie studio revenues throughout the 1980s and 1990s."

          Just so you know...

          Jack Joseph Valenti (September 5, 1921 April 26, 2007) was a longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America. During his 38-year tenure in the MPAA, he created the MPAA film rating system, and he was generally regarded as one of the most influential pro-copyright lobbyists in the world.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          weneedhelp, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:51am

          Re: Re: Re: your hate of the MPAA

          The actions of the MPAA have turned the consumer against them. It is their anti-consumer stance that causes animosity towards them. No one hates them, we hate their anti-consumer actions, we hate their pouring money into bribing (campaign contributions) politicians to create anti-consumer legislation, we hate their lies and fuzzy math. We hate how they rob musicians, and tell actors from the Star Wars series they have not gone into profit yet and cannot pay you royalties. Its their own actions that have caused the general public to begin to ignore copyright. WOLF!!!! WOLF!!!!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Shadow Dragon (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Speak foryotself,AJ. Your predictable arguments of peons like you make your position weak either by accident it by choice.Which make me believe that your real position on this is somewhere else,If you guys are truly are copyright maximalists then come up with a better argument that is so predictable.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      after reading your comment twice i realised that you do not understand that the monopolists were trying to stop any hone video playing , they wanted everyone to have to go to the cinema to watch a movie and never ever have the ability to watch movies at home unless they paid again and again and again. pay per view comes to mind here.

      If it were not for the fight that the people won with regards to home taping and viewing we would be sitting with 100% of the population being classified as criminals for doing something that is both natural an acceptable, watching content when where and how we like to after it has been purchased, or shared.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, that's why they never gave their movies to HBO.

        Oh wait...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 11:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          By the time HBO existed, they'd already lost the VCR war and had turned their attention to trying to monetize outside of theater distribution instead. HBO was part of a business plan shift the studios tried hard to avoid having to do. It is not the counterexample you think it is.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:35am

      Re:

      Moron

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      saulgoode (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:56am

      Re:

      If the VCR hadn't come out, surely another home video player would have with movies supplied by the studios.
      You are correct that "no home video market" is a bit of hyperbole. However, it is not necessary to hypothesize whether a market for play-only devices would have eventually evolved since, at the time videotape machines were hitting the home market, various play-only Videodisc and Laserdisc were also being marketed.

      Yet the "content industry" failed to actually supply enough "content" for those devices to encourage their adoption, apparently holding little interest in fostering a home video market despite the technology existing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      If the VCR hadn't come out, surely another home video player would have with movies supplied by the studios.
      Well I suppose it makes a change that you haven't picked a pointless and pedantic legal issue to argue about, but other than that it's your usual M.O.
      The point is not the VCR as you well know and picking on that in a post about how film revenue and attendace are going up while the studios are whining about how "piracy is KILLING their business" looks rather petty.

      The VCR is, however, a prime example that the legacy content industies try and block every technical innovation that comes along that might force them to adapt their business model even slightly and how they scream it's going to spell doom, Doom, DOOOOOM for the industry.

      As for "video player" versus recorder, you're just playing your usual picky semantic games. Technology advances and even if it it had been the VCP that was invented first, the VCR would inevitably have followed a couple of years later just as the CDR followed the CD, the DVD-R the DVD. For every recorded medium there must b e the technology to record onto it and that technology will eventually be cheap enough for consumers no matter how expensive to start.
      So hollywood would have whined about the VCR whenever it was invented and as always it's them trying to control what other legitimate businesses get to do.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Keroberos (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      I really don't understand why you think it was a home video player that people wanted--it wasn't. They wanted home video recorders. Pre-recorded movies were an eventual bonus--but not a feature that drew early sales. The studios would have--and did, and still do--fought any device that allowed recording. It wasn't until years after the VCR came out that pre-recorded movies from the studios were both plentiful and affordable. Any playback only device that met the studio's demands would have died a quick death with no media to play and no ability to record--look at the 8-track cassette for an example (even with pre-recorded media the consumers didn't want it).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:00am

    "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

    See the difference there?

    Once again, we're left wondering two things. First, how would Hollywood make $100M dollar movies in absence of copyright, with every little pirate in the world stealing them soon as possible. Second, where's this Masnick's $100M dollar movie which proves his notions sound?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Colin, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:04am

      Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

      Is it naiive to think that this is someone using ootb's handle to troll as him because I don't want to believe that even he is this stupid? This isn't even an argument, it's just four random sentences.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:36am

        Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

        Well, I'm sure you're naive, "Colin", but I admit to lousy writing. I was mocking Mike's questions, in haste, because tried to look up where he trotted out the notion of selling DVDs in movie lobbies on first day of new movies; it's a staggeringly silly idea because would facilitate piracy and guarantee far less ticket sales. I can't recall enough key words to find that piece. Anyhoo, any fool can come up with insinuating questions: Mike doesn't have a track record that gives him any authority here, he's just a frat-boy academic. MIKE HAS NO ANSWERS.

        (The $100M movie is my on-going focus. See my 2nd bit above for more, or READ Mike's "can't compete" feature piece and then YOU explain how Mike can just forget about a $100M of "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a movie.)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          Ok. Why does there even need to be $100m movies that do nothing but distract from the real talent and creativity of independent film makers who do not have that sort of budget. There has not been a decent $100m movie in years.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

            @ " Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:42am

            Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

            Ok. Why does there even need to be $100m movies that do nothing but distract from the real talent and creativity of independent film makers who do not have that sort of budget. There has not been a decent $100m movie in years."

            ------------

            SO? Questions are easy, aren't they?

            Make all the movies you want of whatever budget, then "give away and pray" at whatever price you want to charge, sell T-shirts, and so on, and NO ONE WILL STOP YOU (from losing your own T-shirt). -- GO AHEAD and introduce whatever new business models you want. -- BUT you cannot say that the movie industry can operate in absence of copyright and allow piracy to become universal. I don't see any new model that works: go ahead and outline it, then. -- NOR can you force existing industry to provide their products for free! Because that's what Mike wants them to do, SO that his $100M movie example can be a source of income for grifters!

            See my 2nd piece here for exactly what Mike proposes.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

              Movies are culture and culture has existed for centuries without the artificial government granted monopoly that is copyright.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Freetard, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

                Food has existed for centuries without a artificial government granted monopoly.

                Therefore, I should be able to go the grocery store and take whatever I want.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

                  Bad analogy.

                  Here's a better one: You can buy* a watermelon and use the seeds to create as many "copies" of that watermelon as you want. Nobody is going to stop you.


                  * If it helps with the analogy, you can think of this as paying for your internet connection...which pirates still have to do

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  silverscarcat (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:40am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

                  False Analogy.

                  When i make a copy of a movie, the original is still there.

                  When I take a watermellon from the store, that's one less watermellon for everyone.

                  See the difference?

                  Or are you that obtuse?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

              "Make all the movies you want of whatever budget, then "give away and pray" at whatever price you want to charge, sell T-shirts, and so on, and NO ONE WILL STOP YOU (from losing your own T-shirt). -- GO AHEAD and introduce whatever new business models you want. -- BUT you cannot say that the movie industry can operate in absence of copyright and allow piracy to become universal. I don't see any new model that works: go ahead and outline it, then. -- NOR can you force existing industry to provide their products for free! Because that's what Mike wants them to do, SO that his $100M movie example can be a source of income for grifters! "

              Okay, so let's do this on a point by point basis.

              1. "Give away and pray" is NOT and has NEVER been advocated for by Techdirt or Mike.

              2. T-shirts. Ditto.

              3. New business models ARE needed. As is rather obvious, the old ones are no longer effective in a digital age.

              4. No one, TD/Mike, has said the movie industry can operate in the absence of copyright and allow copyright to become universal.

              What has been said is there are ALTERNATIVE business models that can work. No business model will work for everyone. Experiment as you please, find what works for you.

              Copyright is not being advocated against in the sense that you portray. Copyright REFORM is. Big difference, although the point may be lost on one such as yourself.

              Piracy is NOT being advocated for, much less condoned. As has been on numerous occasions flat out stated by Mike himself.

              Piracy CAN be beat by updating business models to reflect the changing digital times and consumer wants/needs of said digital times. (Reasonable prices, as digital "copies" are not requiring any physical materials to produce. As such they should by default be cheaper. Windowed releases no longer work when the world has instant access to anything and everything. Consumers are no longer tied to one device for media consumption, allowing for use on multiple devices with NO DRM would work with this new trend.)

              5. To quote Christopher Titus, "Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean it's not funny." Same applies to you. Just because you don't see any new models that work doesn't mean they don't.

              6. See previous point made. No business model is one-size-fits-alls. Outlining any would therefore be ineffective. YOU want exactly that, one size fits all. Doesn't exist. Quit asking for it.

              7. No one is forcing existing industries to provide their products for free. They are being asked to change their business practices to reflect the changes in the market's wants/needs. (Reasonable prices, no windowed releases/geographical restrictions, no DRM, etc.)

              8. No, that is NOT what Mike wants them to do. At all. But the point of what he does want them to do is lost on you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:56am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          "The $100M movie is my on-going focus"

          You are focusing on the wrong problem.

          If your goal is to make money, creating a $100M movie that sells "OK" should not be a priority. In fact, even if it sells "well", you've sunk so much money into it that you'll have to make many sales just to break even.

          The game studios are starting to learn this the hard way as the smaller, and more nimble indie studios are starting to eat their lunches, even with their tiny budgets.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:46am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          In the eyes of many, piracy is far worse than early release DVDs. Yet evidence shows piracy is not killing the movie industry:

          http://whyipirate.blogspot.com/2012/04/theatrical-movie-business-perished.html

          So what makes you think early release DVDs would have any kind of substantial impact?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 5:01am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          "The $100M movie is my on-going focus"

          ...and is as irrelevant as any of your other ramblings. It's been explained to you why many times, yet you keep using it as if it's the only argument.

          "the notion of selling DVDs in movie lobbies on first day of new movies; it's a staggeringly silly idea because would facilitate piracy and guarantee far less ticket sales"

          Perhaps if instead of using attacks on fictional strawmen, you actually address one simple question - why? (including citations of your evidence and reasoning as to why it's the only outcome) - then maybe people would consider you an interesting person to debate with, instead of the obsessed troll you present yourself as today.

          Personally, I think that only an abject moron would think that allowing people to buy movies on the day of theatrical release would think it leads to *more* piracy when the pirated version are already available - BEFORE release date in some cases. lower sales for other reasons perhaps, but not "because piracy", which seem to be your only argument for anything. I'm willing to discuss my reasoning why if asked. Are you that honest? I think not.

          "MIKE HAS NO ANSWERS."

          Nor do you. At least Mike is capable of addressing reality instead of launching shrill personal attacks on anyone who dares disagree.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:37am

        Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

        Blue's ramblings have never made sense, so it's not out of character.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:34am

      Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

      Moron

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:44am

        Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

        @ Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:34am

        Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

        Moron

        --------------

        Reasonable readers dropping in (assuming any do) take note of this: "Zakida Paul's" response is what you'll get from the fanboy-trolls at Techdirt: not a bit of argument, only ad hom. They're children who are unable to resist comment but have no substance at all, only some positions that they repeat over and over. They don't expand and support Mike's points, just go along with their guru's untried and even untested notions. Anyone who disagrees with Mike is variously reviled; they don't even grasp that they're the ones making a hostile forum here. Techdirt even has an official "comment enforcer", Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", whose specialty is being so vile as to run off most people.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:48am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          It's about all your comment merits. You haven't answered my question above.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

            @ Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:48am

            Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!
            It's about all your comment merits. You haven't answered my question above.

            ------------------

            Oh, REAL ORIGINAL. First, I don't respond to endless time-wasting questions by fanboys who I'm not going to convince. BUT have made an exception because in a mood, so right back at ya:

            I've provided more than your comment deserves. You haven't answered my question above.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Berenerd (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

              "Oh, REAL ORIGINAL. First, I don't respond to endless time-wasting questions by fanboys who I'm not going to convince."

              Spoken like someone who doesn't bother to read responses yet feels the need to let people know how no one bothers to see your side of the situation. A conversation, at least an intelligent one, needs to have both sides listen, so obviously you are not holding up your end of the conversation.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 5:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

              Correction: you don't answer *any* questions. Presumably because you are incapable of backing up your own assertions with anything that resembles evidence, let alone being able to admit that there's more than one valid opinion on these subjects.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Atkray (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:05am

          Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

          blue, this is rich coming from the guy who keeps beating his 100 mil movie drum when it has been explained to you in detail multiple times.

          You used to have occasional posts that while I didn't agree with them I could at least understand them, but lately you increasingly exhibit many of the negative behaviors you so readily point out in others. This hypocrisy reveals much about your agenda and does little to promote your credibility and cause.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:26am

    i would really like to know how many artists still haven't been paid, so how much money the industries owe? how do politicians manage to continuously allow the industries to not just pull the wool over their eyes but downright lie to them over 'piracy' and 'the money being lost' and get away with it, without ANYONE saying a damn thing!!!???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:27am

      Re:

      Yes, obviously they're never paid anything because otherwise some of them would have big houses and fancy cars.

      oh wait...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:51am

        Re: Re:

        Those are on loan. So long as an artist makes money for the industry, they can have nice things. I'm sure you haven't seen the platinum credit card given to the top performing artists. That is debt, not money given to a musician.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 4:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          *insert epic facepalm*

          You're a complete moron.

          Artists get royalty checks from sales, not platinum credit cards.

          Stop trying to rationalize ripping someone off, you worthless douchenozzle.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:47pm

        Re: Re:

        "Some" is the keyword here. What's you point again?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:28am

    I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

    Because between Hollywood and pirates, it's for sure that pirates AREN'T the ones making money. If "making" is at all defined as a business bringing disparate complex elements together to produce a new product to be traded with others, then Hollywood does indeed make money. (Of course, in full sense, they only siphon off wealth from elsewhere: you can't eat even a blockbuster.)

    So I think Mike was for once accurate in his titling.


    Now I object to Pirate Mike's fatuous "they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner" accusation that problem is all Hollywood's stupidity -- and explain more through the magic of copy-paste:

    Mike has an agenda to favor certain grifters over those who actually create and produce content. MANY of the pieces on Techdirt are hair-splitting legalisms supporting the symbiotic system that skates on the very edge of overt commercial infringement. Mike maintains the following sequence is perfectly legal, even protected "free speech":

    1) anonymous up-loaders have a "right" to transfer ("share") whatever data they wish to wherever they wish because it's not commercial infringement;

    2) so that commercial scale file hosts can claim they're NOT infringing copyright because have no knowledge as to whether full-length movie data is copyrighted and NOT "fair use" -- with the extra twist of can't have such knowledge because are too many files to check! -- meanwhile, with the draw of providing for free someone else's valuable copyrighted content, the file hosts directly sell premium access speed plus get advertising revenue;

    3) so that links sites announcing the infringing but "free" content can also draw eyeballs to advertising for income;

    4) so that anonymous down-loaders can get the valuable content for free.

    So here's Mike's actual calculation: $100M movie + 1 up-loader + many file hosts + many links sites + unlimited down-loaders = infinite goods!

    [A similiar symbiotic sequence is in peer-to-peer networks: omit specific file hosts, and only links sites get advertising revenue.]

    Note that except perhaps (one time) for the up-loader, NONE of those entities pay one cent to whoever produced the content. But ALL depend upon getting FREE content: it's a "business model" that can ignore the "sunk (or fixed) costs" for a $100M movie to focus only on bandwidth costs EXACTLY as in Mike's "can't compete" piece! -- I say that's NOT coincidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:33am

      Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

      If you could just force yourself to quit the personal attacks, your arguments could be made in to a interesting discussion.

      Attacking Mike wont move the discussion about the state of copyright or the business practices of the entertainment industry forward. You'll note that I'm not asking you to agree with anyone, just drop the personal attacks.

      However, if you want your comments to be ignored, then I guess you are getting the reaction you are getting.

      Happy New Year.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        out_of_the_blue, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:12am

        Re: Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

        @ Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:33am

        Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...
        If you could just force yourself to quit the personal attacks, your arguments could be made in to a interesting discussion.

        Attacking Mike wont move the discussion about the state of copyright or the business practices of the entertainment industry forward. You'll note that I'm not asking you to agree with anyone, just drop the personal attacks.

        However, if you want your comments to be ignored, then I guess you are getting the reaction you are getting.

        Happy New Year.
        -----------------

        1) I don't really care about the forum, NOR results (if any). The fanboy-trolls here have nothing but personal attacks: it's they who don't move opinion. If they started to analyze Mike's notions -- as I did -- they'd come to same conclustions: Mike has nothing but hazy notions of "better business model" and selling T-shirts. It's not an industry.

        2) You AC don't have anything but personal attack here. In at least the item you replied to, it's all substance on Mike's positions, not a bit of personal that I see. You're just another of Mike's virtual sock-puppets trying to sway me from substance. My comments stand on their own, especially since not answered substantively -- nor even ignored! That's the funny part. You'd think by now that the fanboy-trolls would have learned not to bother, they're only making the forum unpleasant with ad hom comments, but they don't. I give them a prod and they yap their heads off like anke-biters. Quite an interestingly wacky sociology here, keeps me interested...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Shadow Dragon (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:05am

          Re: Re: Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

          Why do post the same old predictable arguments that make your position look has.Dp actually care about those position you represent or are you a decoy in disguise? I see through your charade.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 12:35pm

          Re: Re: Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

          "If they started to analyze Mike's notions -- as I did -- they'd come to same conclustions"

          You apparently don't understand much about individuality if you think that everyone would come to the same conclusion about anything if they analyzed it as you did.

          Different people are different, obviously. Even people who might agree with you to some degree will still come to a wide variety of variations on your conclusions.

          The "I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree with me didn't think about it properly" position is just arrogant and sad. Even if you had a legitimate point, why would anyone bother to read your comments other than to laugh at your vitriol and immaturity?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:35am

      Re: I won't quibble with "Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money"...

      Moron

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:33am

    Poor Hollywood. Trillions of jobs and dollars lost already. How will the movie industry survive?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:48am

    Studios never like new ways of viewing because they have less control over it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:52am

    I look at a DVDs in stores, and they just seem so obsolete to me. I don't understand why they waste money on this shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 8:57am

    Question for OOTB

    Why do you always critcise Mike for being pro corporation and then on articles like this you come over all pro corporation yourself?

    On the Instagram article you came down on Mike for being pro corporation and yet here you are defending the corporate whores that run Hollywood. Why so inconsistent and even hypocritical?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:01am

    "Reasonable readers dropping in (assuming any do) take note of this: "Zakida Paul's" response is what you'll get from the fanboy-trolls at Techdirt: not a bit of argument, only ad hom. They're children who are unable to resist comment but have no substance at all, only some positions that they repeat over and over."

    No, because the usual responses you get are debunkings of your moronic and ignorant posts. You know, the ones you usually don't bother responding too. Probably because of a lack of facts to support the claims you make.

    Also, it's a bit, well actually VERY, hypocritical of you to say others have no arguments and only ad homs. Considering all your post thus far in this article have consisted solely of making ad homs about Mike and readers of this site. Nor do you make any arguments contrary to what was stated in the article, at least none that are supported or backed up by anything in the way of facts. You've resorted to the AJ approach of "ANSWER MY QUESTION!!! RAWR!!!" (See your constant bit about the $100M movie.)

    "They don't expand and support Mike's points, just go along with their guru's untried and even untested notions. "

    Provably false. In point of fact, most people commenting consistently expand upon Mike's points. Usually in reply to trolls like yourself. Elaborating on and putting as simply as possible what Mike says and means, then adding their own commentary to it as well.

    "Anyone who disagrees with Mike is variously reviled; they don't even grasp that they're the ones making a hostile forum here."

    No, many who disagree with Mike are NOT variously reviled. Or better said those that do so with a level of respect for Mike's position, even if they disagree with it, and are able to communicate their own thoughts and feelings on a given subject without resorting to launching personal attacks at Mike or making generalized ad homs about the people on this site (you know, those little things you do every time yo ucomment). In addition to that they use logic and reason in their arguments against a given position, without resorting to "but piracy!!!" or "but the law!!!" or "but morals!!!" (Basically, they avoid the bits that are irrelevant and focus instead on facts and data. Again, something you may find yourself unfamiliar with, given as you've never come across it once in any of your postings.)

    As for the hostile forum here, that's a blatantly false statement. This forum is anything but hostile. Except for when trolls like you come here and start accusing everyone of piracy or resorting to comments that are nothing but personal attacks. That's hostile. Hypocrisy thy name is Blue.

    "Techdirt even has an official "comment enforcer", Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet", whose specialty is being so vile as to run off most people."

    Oh, would this be the same "comment enforcer" you routinely confuse me with and refer to as, and I quote, "Dick Helmet"? Yeah, you're not very good at this "argument" thing are you? You wag your finger at others about making ad homs and ignore the fact that you refer to the "comment enforcer" with the terms I just quoted every chance you get. That's an ad hom by the way, just in case you weren't aware.

    Anyway, this is me, a fanboy-troll apparently (since I visit this site daily and comment regularly, albeit anonymously, and agree with the majority of things on this site, but not everything and definitely not with everyone) replying to your comment in a reasonable and respectful manner. Hopefully in the attempt that you get a clue and realize this is the kind of comment you SHOULD be making, but knowing it is definitely not the kind you'll ever make, much less respond to (because it shoots down everything you just said and we all know you can't respond to those kinds of comments, as is usual).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 3:30pm

      Re:

      I'd just like to point out that insults generally are an attempt to derail an argument...

      BUT

      Whining about insults is precisely the same thing.

      There's either an argument, or there isn't. Stick to the meat, and ignore the extraneous stuff. Calling someone out for insults is trying to make your argument more "respectable."

      Both are classic debate tactics. In fact, I think the words "ad hominem" are used here far more than any actual ad hominem attacks happen.

      Same goes for shill. How anyone can say the debate here is honest, when every single person who argues against piracy is called a shill is beyond me. It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance for that.

      That anyone thinks this a balanced forum is laughable. I'm sure Bill O'Reilly also thinks he is reasonable.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:35am

    Hollywood made more money, but of course that had nothing to do with greater piracy enforcement... lol.

    I figured out how Masnick and you bozos function:

    1. State that Hollywood has a business model problem and that's why they're not making enough money, not piracy.

    2. Later say piracy must not be a problem because Hollywood is already making enough money.

    3. Go back to Step 1 and begin talking in circles again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ruben, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:07am

      Re:

      I'm not sure which reality you live in, but points 1 and 2 are excellent point which have yet to be responded to by big ent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:41am

      Re:

      1. Hollywood states that piracy is a problem and that's why they're not making enough money.

      2. The MPAA and RIAA bribe Senators and Congresscritters to write laws that only they know of and export them, but do little to actually address other issues.

      3) Go back to Step 1 and begin talking in circles again.


      FTFY

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 1:05pm

        Re: Re:

        yea, cuz there's all those new laws...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 4:18pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not always, but there's a ton of new trade agreements being negotiated, and quite a few of them are trying to have that criminality language shoved in them that has this annoying tendency to originate from US negotiators...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Logan2057 (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    RE;Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "At The Box Office", Mike, NOT a cent from pirates!

    I don't know about the rest of you but O_O_T_B and Average_Joe seem to be vying for the moron of the decade award. Neither seems to have any clue other than to trash Mike, Dark Helmet and others in this forum. Their posts are more laughable than constructive and their vitriol is aimed at the wrong people.
    They should be taking it out on themselves for drinking the kool-aid from the RIAA and MPAA. Yet they can't resist time and again making fools of themselves and winding up being vilified by everyone who has a bit of common sense other than the black hole that seems to be omnipresent in their heads.
    You'd think by now they'd be getting tired of the same old shtick but, no, with each post they seem to relish making horses' asses of themselves by name calling, and garbage spouting.
    For once why don't O_O_T_B, Average_Joe, Bob and TAM sit down together and commiserate on the fact that no matter how much stupidity they espouse no one is going to believe them.
    I feel sorry for these simple minded, misinformed, ass clowns who think that the word of RIAA and the MPAA is gospel and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
    Unfortunately, there are some people out there, these four souls amongst them who seem to think that the sky is black the sun is blue and the wind only blows roses and perfume from the dung heap that is Hollywood and the RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Dec 26th, 2012 @ 10:18am

    At least the money they make does not come in any part from me !
    I Boycott all MAFIAA and give them a big Two Finger Salute.
    And I have no problem at all spending my money on Local and Indie Art.Fuck You to Hollywood.If I really need to go near you I will just buy a Used Product.And if that is not ever there I can easily just not watch whatever new thing you got out.The thing is I just do not have any interest at all in your Industry.Time to move on to new ground.Dinosaurs can go extinct.............Finding new life elsewhere.That is Evolution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    I thank the community for hiding the idiot troll rants.

    It's become evident that even occasional readers are seeing ootb's rants resemble someone off his meds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:30am

    Well, whaddaya know...

    Hollywood makes money when they make movies that people actually want to see. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This