Amazingly, Downloadability Of Michael Moore's Film Didn't Appear To Hurt Box Office

from the how-shocking dept

We thought it was fairly amusing last month when Advertising Age claimed that Michael Moore's film being available for download online was "every film maker's worst marketing nightmare." After all, there was absolutely no evidence that having a film available to download hurts box office sales since the experience of watching on a computer and watching in a theater is totally different (and not just concerning quality and screen size, but the fact that going out to the movies is a social event). Plus, Moore himself had said in the past that he liked having his movies available for download. After all, remember that the last Star Wars movie was available for download before it came out and it certainly didn't hurt sales. So, it came as no surprise to us to find out that Moore's movie actually did quite well at the box office -- coming in second on a per-theater revenue basis. However, if you want to see a copyright lawyer in denial, check out the quote that News.com got from one when asked whether or not Moore's film being available for download could possibly have helped ticket sales at the box office:
"No, no, no, no," Prager seethed. "This is depressing. We're not seeing a rise in the peer-to-peer influence market. Anything positive they may bring is instantly canceled."
Apparently, the industry is now using the "if we just keep believing we're right, despite the evidence, maybe it will be true" method of dealing with the changing market.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous of Course, 4 Jul 2007 @ 9:14pm

    Bah!

    I've been self employed and worked for companies large
    and small. Everyone in the USA gets health care.
    The worst situation to be in is working with no health
    benefits from your employer. You pay though the nose.
    Many people qualify for the federal programs medicade
    and medicare as well as state run programs. There are
    charity programs run by cities and also the Catholic
    hospitals (probably other as well.) Yes charity works
    and it should be no more or less demeaning than taking
    money from the state.

    Yeah in many cases it's subsitance care, crises
    intervention but in EVERY system the people with more
    $$ fare better. Canadians who can afford it cross the
    border for by-pass surgery because they don't want to
    die waiting for their own system to deliver. Other
    state run systems have there problems as well.

    The principal thing that needs fixing in the USA is
    cost controls and nobody wants that if it degrades
    their care so it's a touchy issue.

    The uninsured are not uncared for. The system works well
    but has problems with cost controls for various reasons.
    One of which is fear of litigation by doctors. Another is
    really horrible billing systems from hospitals who are not
    used to having any charges questioned.

    I know this because I've been uninsured while having
    cardiac problems. I think Moore's case is made by
    picking out the exceptions.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.