UK Copyright Group Plans Heavy Anti-Piracy Measures For Bond Film Because Of How Successful It Will Be

from the wut? dept

FACT, the UK's anti-piracy group that has long waged war on cammers and occassionally likes to cosplay as law enforcement officers, has built quite a reputation for itself throughout the years. That said, as I find with most of these copyright and entertainment groups, I just can't seem to make sense of their lexicon. Only recently, FACT has made it publicly known that it is upping its battle against in-theater cameras that might record the upcoming Bond film, Spectre.

Due to the national and international importance of Bond’s latest outing, FACT have issued a somewhat unusual proactive anti-piracy statement, presumably to deter would-be pirates from leaking the movie.

“James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible. We really don’t want to see that recorded,” says FACT director general Kieron Sharp. “The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher risk it is. We have staff on extra alert for that. They are on alert, particularly with the bigger films like James Bond, to really drill down to who is in the auditorium and who might possibly be recording.”
Except that's almost never the case. Risk -- assuming that FACT means financial risk at the hands of piracy -- is almost never really a factor in the AAA, box-office busting films. In fact, it's quite easy to draw a correlation between the box office success of a film and the levels to which it's pirated. Why? Well, because of the not complicated reason that good movies are good and people, all people, want to see good movies. Paying customers want to see good movies, as do those willing to pirate. Piracy doesn't necessarily make films successful, but it sure doesn't keep the massive releases from being successful, either. And it seems everyone kind of knows this.
While FACT are always keen to deter pirates, why the special fuss over Bond? The profile of the movie and its commercial importance are obviously key factors since Spectre is likely to be one of the biggest box-office hits this year.
So FACT is ramping up the war on piracy because it knows that the film is going to be successful? How does that make even the tiniest bit of sense? Now, as for the real reason the industry is so concerned, it's because that same industry is going out of its way to make piracy a natural remedy for its own stupid release windows.
The real surprise here is that UK pirates are being given almost two weeks to record Spectre and begin online distribution before it hits cinemas in the United States and the rest of the world on October 6. That probably goes a long way to explaining why FACT are being forced to implement extraordinary security measures – a U.S. pre-release is exactly what the anti-piracy group is trying to avoid.

But why take the chance that someone slips through the net? Hollywood knows that these windows fuel ‘camming’ yet MGM and Columbia are apparently prepared to risk “the most damaging form of piracy” by leaving the entire world dangling for 12 days while potentially millions of illicit copies of Spectre float around the Internet.
And, make no mistake, those illicit copies will certainly be available. In other words, the industry was faced with two choices to deter piracy: it could valiantly fail to keep any camming from happening and being released on the internet or it could adjust to the reality of the market and release the film worldwide at the same time as the UK release. It chose the former, because apparently playing some kind of spy game to police a spy movie while not accomplishing anything is more fun than actually barely-altering a business model to give customers what they want.

Filed Under: camming, copyright, fact, james bond, overreaction, spectre, uk
Companies: fact


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 2:52pm

    Note to self:

    Head to the cheapest internet cafe after the pre-dvd hd korean release and buy up 20 seats for 12 hours, walk away, and just let it seed until they shut down.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 2:56pm

    As someone born and raised in the UK, I hate Bond movies.

    Just sayin'.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 2:58pm

    No boxoffice, No pirating

    Well, they don't have to worry about losing my boxoffice contribution, there was never going to be one. Won't bother to pirate it either.

    Now, if Connery was still in play, even if Bond now worked from a Q tinkered wheelchair, things might be different.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:02pm

    One of these days someone will determine who is Really behind all these efforts.

    They will seek a picture of the back office with a cell phone and post it for all to see.

    It will be the Howard brothers and Larry Fine! (aka The Three Stooges) whoop whoop whoop!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:48pm

      Re:

      You see, the reason they go through these costly efforts is because the studios noticed that when they spend money on useless programs to try to eliminate piracy they see a profit. So long as they dump money into endeavors that will never succeed they will continue to see record returns on their investments.

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

      • icon
        orbitalinsertion (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Shhh. No! They never see a "profit". They make sure of that.

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

        • icon
          charliebrown (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hollywood Accounting

          Maybe that's the point: Claim to spend money on anti-piracy "efforts", spend $10 on a press release saying "don't do it", but in the accounts they write it up as about $100,000 for some big campaign that never existed.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:04pm

    In before Blue pees his pants about this being Googles fault.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:14pm

    “James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible. We really don’t want to see that recorded,” says FACT director general Kieron Sharp. “The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher risk it is. We have staff on extra alert for that. They are on alert, particularly with the bigger films like James Bond, to really drill down to who is in the auditorium and who might possibly be recording.”


    Note 2 self: stay away from theaters. I don't want anybody drilling down on me.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:14pm

    Been Warned

    My mind is a movie recording machine. Guess I'll have to sit this one out.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:21pm

    I like Daniel Craig's Bond, but each of his Bond movies has been worse than the last one. Skyfall's plot required so many implausible scenarios and stripped so much of the Bondness from the movie that it felt like a Bond movie made by someone who had only heard of other Bond movies before.

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:21pm

    Trolling, Anyone?

    I have a sudden urge to walk into the theatre with a late-1800s bellows-design wet plate camera, massive wooden tripod, and a pan of flash powder.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:33pm

      Re: Trolling, Anyone?

      I would pay folding money to see that live.... bonus dollars if you get at least one flash off....

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

  • icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:40pm

    Well, that worked then

    Well done FACT, you've totally managed to stop me pirating "SPECTRE". What's that you say? Your brilliant campaign? Well...... kinda...

    Having been more utterly underwhelmed by Skyfall (when I finally bothered to borrow it off someone) than by pretty much any film ever, my expectation wasn't high in the first place, so you're safe from me downloading it.

    Given a trip for 2 to the cinema is usually the guts of £40 (um $60?), there's a whole list if other things to spend that kind of money on than being annoyed by rude people, (though, as an aside, people recording films are among the more pleasant cinema-goers being as they are usually quiet and still), but hey, it might have been a possibility.

    The casual threat of "drilling down who is in the auditorium", however, has had the presumably desired effect of making it certain I will be no-where near one. Not that I've ever recorded or want to record a film (and why would I when there's usually a gazillion copies from the master or promotional pre-releases floating around within days if not before release?), just that I hate the shitty way you do business and have no desire to give you my money.

    So well done, that's one less person that might possibly have virtually cost you virtual sales had they actually shown up in a cinema. On the other hand, good luck getting any money out of me at all for a film you've made me vehemently not care about, but it's nice to have won the "moral" battle.... right?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:42pm

    They seem to be taking precautions against cam recording ,in cinema,s ,
    as most films end up being uploaded to torrent sites
    in the form of low quality camera recordings .
    As even pirates find it hard to get a high quality copy of a movie until its released on dvd ,unless its leaked on the web.
    This is like the people that buy a 50 dollar rolex watch .They are not the people who can afford to buy a real 400 dollar rolex watch.
    The type of person who downloads and watchs a low quality cam video
    of a bond film is probably unlikely to buy the dvd or blueray when it comes out.
    Every single big film release ends up being uploaded
    to a torrent site .
    Maybe the film industry should look at the music industry .
    they reduced piracy by making their product avaidable at
    a reasonable price from itunes and various streaming
    services all over the world .
    And most films end up on netflix or amazon video
    at least for a limited time .

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:43pm

    so why doesn't the studio try some heavy listening to customers and doing what they keep asking for? that move, to give access to legal downloading, charging sensible prices, allowing format shifting, and allowing backups of legally bought disks would wipe 'piracy' out almost entirely in one go, but the studios wont listen to customers for the simple reason THEY DONT WANT TO STOP PEOPLE 'PIRATING' MEDIA! THEY WANT THEM TO CONTINUE SO AS TO BE ABLE TO KEEP WHINING TO POLITICIANS AND LAW MAKERS ABOUT HOW BAD A NON-EXISTING PROBLEM (other then in the minds of the studio heads!) THERE IS!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:52pm

    I never used to watch films for free online. Until the day I realized the films I wanted to watch were no longer being sold where I could buy them.

    I would happily pay companies money to have the physical copies of films I enjoy Instead it's watch it digitally once or not at all.

    Perhaps instead of making it harder to buy movies they could open the access to purchasing them.

    I am reffering more to decades old movies than the current ones. I find most of the new films these days not worth watching even for free. Completely wooden actors, and bad plots with lots of "action and splosions to distract"

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 9:25am

      Re:

      "most of the new films these days not worth watching even for free. Completely wooden actors, and bad plots with lots of "action and splosions to distract"

      Read my mind

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:56pm

    It's all misdirection

    Like a good magician, these copyright groups are becoming very good as misdirection: they're getting everyone in a froth over cam-cording, yet there's no "market" for poor quality movies like this.
    On the other hand (that they don't want you to see) are the 1080i Blu-Ray versions giving out to critics and screeners, which somehow end up on the torrent sites.

    So, it's better to blame cam-corders instead of coming down on screeners and friends of the studio.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:05pm

    I guess "letting U.S. customers pay for the silly thing two weeks earlier" would somehow harm the starving artists. And their children. And let the terrorists win.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 12:02am

      Re:

      "letting U.S. customers pay for the silly thing two weeks earlier"

      Or, "letting the rest of the world pay for it when it comes out in the US" like 90% of the other movies out there (though they are getting better at worldwide releases)

      Or, "letting people who can't make it to a cinema pay for it at home on release" as per the majority of cinema releases where people are forced to wait months.

      I know it's often more complicated than that, but it will never cease to amaze me how they will spend tens of millions on advertising their product, deliberately block a large chunk of the people they've advertised to from buying their product, and then act surprised when people find alternative methods of viewing.

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

  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:47pm

    We used to have a couple thousand store bought movies, with a good many of them being box sets. Do the math on what that cost. But we would spend an hour deciding on a movie to watch, only to find the disc scratched or missing. And we were also always chasing the incremental versions they put out to make you buy the same box set over and over. Even being rich, it was an awful experience.

    No, I'm not going to play that game any more. What used to be a wall full of movies now fits in my pocket. Like many movie fans, I could give a fuck if they start innovating now, because I already have the setup I want.

    Let the copyright police do whatever they gotta do. Their cause is not only futile, it's unjust. But by all means, let them lock up all their customers--I'm sure that'll work out.

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

  • identicon
    jackn, 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:08pm

    Who the fuck cares about their totally fresh remash of the same old shit. They can't even create a new fucking character. Fuck them and their amature film making by committee.

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

  • icon
    charliebrown (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:09pm

    About FACT

    One: "Federation Against Copyright Theft"? Nobody is stealing your copyright. Two: These are the guys who claim piracy supports terrorism. See their commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLVyNB52R8

    Three: Last year I, an Australian, bought almost $1,000 worth of old English comedy TV shows on DVD from Amazon UK (saving about $1,500 compared to buying them locally). Nearly all of them have the FACT logo on the back but I've seen hardly any FACT ads on the discs, so if I didn't already know, I wouldn't even know what the hell "FACT" is!

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 12:10am

      Re: About FACT

      "Nobody is stealing your copyright"

      Not true, although it's the corporations they represent who steal copyright from independents, not those corporations having their copyright stolen.

      "Nearly all of them have the FACT logo on the back but I've seen hardly any FACT ads on the discs"

      I think they backed down a little after they realised they were only pissing off the people who weren't pirating by lecturing them on their legally purchased property.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:26pm

    Not good enough

    Simply looking out for people recording the movie with small cameras? Why stop there?

    People might try and record the films with their phones, so forbid people from bringing those into the theater entirely. And much like candy, people might try and sneak them in anyway, so clearly pat-downs and/or scanners are needed to make sure.

    Basically I'm all for anything that makes going to the theater as unpleasant as possible. The ones making the films hold blatant contempt for those that keep them in business, and their customers deserve to have this demonstrated to them until they get the message.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:13pm

      Re: Not good enough

      "People might try and record the films with their phones, so forbid people from bringing those into the theater entirely."

      If you have some money you want to loose here is a way to do it.
      Go to the theater, wait until the movie starts, take out your phone and hold it infront of you. I garantee you will leave the room in less than 20 minutes and some nice police guys will search your phone, jacket, pocket, bag and whatever you have on you.

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

    • identicon
      Klaus, 25 Sep 2015 @ 2:14am

      Re: Not good enough

      I find it very, very creepy that whilst I'm sat in a cinema in the dark watching a film, there are high-tech low-light high-resolution cameras watching me. Closely. Jesus wept, the things I used to get up to in cinemas...

      it's one thing to have dumb CCTV cameras recording you walk round a town centre, quite another to be scrutinized in the dark.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:34pm

    You can't catch everyone. There are two Disneyland attaractions were all video recording is prohibited, but you can still see them on YouTube. Star Tours and Great Moments With Mr Lincoln have have bans on video recording, but you can still find them on YouTube.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 12:07am

      Re:

      I've got a fairly good photo of Picasso's Guernica, which I sneaked on my phone when the guards were telling other people off for ignoring the no photography signs (unlike them, I wasn't dumb enough to be using a flash).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:38pm

    the twelve day window

    The Studio probably wants the window so they can audience test the film, and finish editing for the US release.

    The Different Release dates allow for some creative Hollywood accounting, There was "all that copyright infringment" so the studio bosses can say they didn't turn a profit, and they can't pay out any percentages owed.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:09pm

    Bond, James... Who?

    That's the guy who beats up everyone like a good american action hero does, right?
    Oh, what did you say? He uses wierd technology like driving a car with a cellphone from the backseat? You must be talking about someone else. For the last couple of years the most high-tech thing James Bond used was a gun.

    The only reason I see for this PR stunt is well... the PR. With the new Bond the whole "Bond, James Bond" thing fell apart and became a "I'm f'ing Bond mother*peep*er! Give me the freaking code before I beat the #+o0 out of you!!!"

    But hey, if you killed a successfull franchise you got to use everything you have to break even. And if you don't blame them pirates.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:15pm

    I'll just wait until it comes to Netflix of Amazon Prime and then show it on my theater at home in a much better and enjoyable environment than a public theater and there's nothing the MPAA can do about it.

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

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:16pm

    Due to the national and international importance of Bond’s latest outing

    Say what?

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

  • icon
    Morgan Wick (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:54pm

    "Piracy doesn't necessarily make films successful, but it sure doesn't keep the massive releases from being successful, either." "So FACT is ramping up the war on piracy because it knows that the film is going to be successful? How does that make even the tiniest bit of sense?"

    Simple. You are a human being, so you view financial success as a yes/no question. They are capitalists, and in capitalism, there is no such thing as making too much money, anything else be damned.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 12:44am

    Coming to a cinema near you

    FACT the TSA of copyright enforcement, complete with the security theatre.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Cowherd, 25 Sep 2015 @ 2:57am

      Re: Coming to a cinema near you

      Shame you can't just go home and download your own airplane from the internet, too.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 5:35am

        Re: Re: Coming to a cinema near you

        I think it is like downloading a car but moreso. Technically you could but it would require loads of printing time and materials and obscene amounts of assembly time. Only real reason to do so is to be able to claim that you did.

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

  • icon
    lfroen (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 1:29am

    nothing of "wut" here

    Studious acting in very predictable manner. They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success.
    And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea.
    And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:53am

      They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success.

      Clearly not that much or they release would be simultaneous worldwide, drastically reducing the possible impact from camming.

      And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing. There's nothing unreasonable in this idea.

      Behind the idea perhaps not, but the execution of it? Absolutely. They could absolutely gut the demand/interest in torrents of the film if they would only get past the idiotic idea of 'release windows'.

      Go through the hassle of finding a torrent, download it, hope the quality is decent or at least passable, or go to the theater, shell out some money, and watch it on a huge freakin' screen.

      Most people are going to choose option #2 if possible, but when option #1 is the only one available because some morons are still enamored with the idea behind 'release it at location 1 on day/month X, release it at location 2 on day/month Y', despite the fact that the internet allows global communications in near real-time, some people aren't going to feel like waiting.

      Some of them wouldn't have gone anyway, some of them probably would have but won't after downloading, and some of them will download and still go. 1 and 3 can be dismissed, as their behavior wasn't going to change with or without the torrent option, but #2 are the studios deliberately leaving money on the table, as they are people that would have paid, but now aren't, simply because of the needless staggered release.

      (And just to head off a possible counter argument... Should people in the example, and in general, engage in copyright infringement? No. However, this is meaningless, as despite 'should' or 'shouldn't', it still happens, and will always happen. You can fight the tide, complain that it shouldn't be coming in, and be washed away, or you can adapt and act in such a manner that the tide coming in doesn't affect you, or ideally helps you.)

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 4:56am

        Re:

        It's also worth noting that there are a multitude of reasons why people won't watch the film at the cinema that have nothing to do with release windows. Maybe you're working. Maybe you're sick. Maybe you don't live near a cinema (my closest is 30kms from where I live, with no easy public transport option, for example - easy for me but I have many friends who haven't visted a cinema for years). Maybe you simply can't afford to go, especially people with young families who not only have to afford the cinema ticket but have to find babysitters, etc.

        The problem with these arguments is that the morons on the other side think that reality is binary - i.e. pay or pirate. They always forget the other options - wait for DVD, wait for cable/Netflix, wait till you can borrow your mate's DVD, etc. Plus, the one they definitely never consider - don't buy at all and buy from a competitor instead.

        "However, this is meaningless, as despite 'should' or 'shouldn't', it still happens, and will always happen"

        ...and has *always* happened. I remember seeing a pirated VHS of E.T. when I was around 9 years old, which was obtained primarily because the studio were scared of releasing it on VHS at the time. Strangely enough, the film still managed to make money when they stopped crapping themselves and released it legally. There should have been a lesson in that, yet here we are 30 years later still trying to teach the same things.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 4:49am

      Re: nothing of "wut" here

      "Studious acting in very predictable manner."

      Yes, it's predictable that they'll act in such a silly and ineffective manner. That'll be why we're talking about it.

      "They think that movie gonna be success, and therefor want to monetize this success."

      But, they won't do any of the things that will actually help that (e.g. worldwide release, making the theatrical experience better), they just want to grandstand.

      "And no, they don't want "free publicity" from torrents, they want people to pay for viewing."

      Want it or not, that's what they'll get. No matter how much they piss off the people who are paying others will continue to pirate. There's not a damn thing they realistically can do about it, at least not without attacking the people who are already paying.

      "And yes, prohibit cameras in movie theater is also sensible thing to do. Since when caprip became OK?"

      Since when was that the only use for a camera? If they don't want to lose sales, maybe "don't come near this cinema else we'll confiscate the camera you had with you for the other things you were doing today" isn't the best advertisement?

      Also, if the biggest threat to your box office receipts is that somebody might decide to watch a blurry, shaky cam of a movie with other patrons standing up and down in front of the camera instead of watching it properly, your movie has bigger problems than the existence of that footage.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 1:44am

    "We really don’t want to see that recorded..."

    Me either.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:41am

    The ultimate anti-piracy measure

    I have a ingenious idea for FACT: DON'T RELEASE THE MOVIE. Lock it up in a heavy steel vault and sink it in the Mariana Trench and voilá, there will never be any piracy!

    Do please try it.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 27 Sep 2015 @ 10:14pm

      Re: The ultimate anti-piracy measure

      I have a ingenious idea for FACT: DON'T RELEASE THE MOVIE. Lock it up in a heavy steel vault and sink it in the Mariana Trench and voilá, there will never be any piracy!

      It would be cheaper and easier to just not have any cameras on the set while the actors are acting. Then there's no movie to put in a vault and throw in the ocean.

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

  • icon
    voiceofReason (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 6:28am

    We need centralized planning, yes?

    Remarkably, in 2015, a movie studio, having spent a few hundred million dollats to make and distribute a movie, is allowed under the laws of a free society to do the following:

    1) Make a movie
    2) Distribute it as permitted under the laws of the various countries, at whatever date it wishes to.

    Without being forced to choose between being pirated or reducing the anticipated gross revenue its highly paid financial analysts feel will maximize the revenue.

    When Techdirt starts having skin in this game, say by contributing a million or two or fifty towards the production, or owning a major portion of the common stock of a studio, then it should have a binding say in how and when the movie is distributed.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 6:34am

      Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

      Oh dear, this tired, bullshit line... yawn...

      Whether you like it or not, reality dictates that piracy exists, and the best way to encourage it is to artificially limit paying customers' access to the product. Now, I'm sure analysts and studios would love it if this weren't the case, but dancing around the issue in a fantasy land of your own imagination.

      Reality exists, deal with it, profit from it. Don't deny it just because your fevered imagination can think of somewhere you could have made more money.

      Oh, by the way, I have "skin in the game", because I'm one of the non-pirates these people are supposedly trying to convince to pay for their product,as I've paid money for every Bond movie produced so far in history, often multiple times. Crap like this convinces me not to this time around.

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

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 25 Sep 2015 @ 9:40am

        Re: Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

        ANYONE that might be collateral damage of all of these anti-piracy measures has skin in the game. I don't want to live in a policy state over the latest Bond film. As a paying customer I want a better product. That goes for the "creative" element as well as the theater experience itself.

        Hollywood and cinemas are wasting money focusing on the wrong things.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2015 @ 3:20am

      Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

      So if you don't sell the movie in my country, why do I have send money to you regardless of whether I end up watching it or not?

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 27 Sep 2015 @ 10:15pm

      Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

      Without being forced to choose between being pirated

      Nobody gets to choose whether their stuff is pirated.

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2015 @ 7:22am

      Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

      So you're saying that if you aren't a movie studio then you have no right to an opinion about this?

      Bullshit.

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

      • icon
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Sep 2015 @ 7:40am

        Re: Re: We need centralized planning, yes?

        So you're saying that if you aren't a movie studio then you have no right to an opinion about this?


        I agree that is bullshit. It's about as stupid as saying that only pirates are allowed to have opinions concerning piracy.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 8:07am

    Don't go to the movies. Otherwise, you are helping the MAFIAA to destroy the internet faster.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 26 Sep 2015 @ 2:38am

      Re:

      That makes no sense. Do you honestly think that them demonstrably losing money would stop them doing what they're doing, when they're whining about lost sales now when they're making record profits?

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2015 @ 6:52am

        Re: Re:

        Probably not, as I'm all but certain even if every single person refused to go to the movies, and made it clear that it was due to how the studios treat people, they'd still insist that it was piracy that was the cause of all their woes, since to do otherwise would require them to admit that their own actions might, just might, be responsible for most of their problems.

        However, given the choice between supporting them in screwing me over, and spending the money on creators who don't hold me in blatant contempt, I know which one I'd go with, even if doing so isn't likely to have any noticeable difference on the parasites.

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • 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.