Rich Gibson  12-26-2002
11:03 PM ET (US)
|
'Politically incorrect' is another one of those terms whose useage implies more than is stated. Words matter...they are all that we have.
|
cypherpunks 12-26-2002
08:39 PM ET (US)
|
For many movies, total DVD sale revenues are approaching the same value as total box office receipts. The home market is huge and growing. As people upgrade their home video systems with big screen TVs, surround sound, HDTV video and progressive scan DVDs, the home viewing experience is becoming superior in quality to the movies, even ignoring sticky floors, crying babies and the noisy guy behind you. The home video business is Hollywood's future, and they know it. Whatever you call it, file sharing threatens that business very directly.
As for the industry's previous warnings, TV obviously did hurt movies; Gone with the Wind had more admissions than any movie in history despite the much smaller population back then. And one reason the Betamax didn't kill Hollywood is because people were too dumb to figure out how to record with it. The blinking 12:00 was a standard joke until recently. People by and large never recorded anything with their VCRs, they just used them to watch Hollywood-sold videos. Jack Valenti would not have objected to a device that worked that way. His only mistake was overestimating the intelligence of the American public in thinking that they would be able to use their VCRs to pirate (sorry; is "share" the politically correct word now?) copyrighted material.
|
Rich Gibson 12-26-2002
04:27 PM ET (US)
|
Titaniumtommy...
'Music Piracy' is a term of propaganda created by the music biz. It is used to describe a large number of activities, the majority of which are legitimate uses of media.
Anytime the 'media' uses the term 'piracy,' they are exposing their corporate bias.
|
xradiographer 12-26-2002
04:26 PM ET (US)
|
Yeah, it's like that whole videotape thing. I don't know of anybody who really watches them; they all go to the theaters where you can get cheap popcorn, snacks, a newsreel etc. And that whole DVD thing? Did anybody seriously think people would buy or rent DVDs when they could go to a theatre to see a movie?
NO, you're right. In America, it's all about the movie theaters. Piracy or any other method of watching at home just won't fly.
|
Titaniumtommy 12-26-2002
01:21 PM ET (US)
|
Movie piracy probably will not take off in the US like music piracy has because going to movies is about the experience. The screen size and the sound system are things that just cannot be replicated at home (unless you are quite wealthy).
Americans care too much about quality and will not stand for watching pirated movies on their computers or even home entertainment centers. In places like China/Hong Kong and other parts of Asia, piracy is the norm because:
1) quality is not an issue. Most people have never seen a movie in a theater. And those that have notice that the theaters have bigger screens, but they are filthy and the sound sucks. Purchasing a pirated VCD or DVD brings the experience home.
2) most people don't have the disposable income to go to movie theaters often. And more than one person can watch a pirated film for one price. This is not really an issue here since most Americans can afford a night at the movies once in a while.
3) There is no movie industry infrastructure. The only way to find out what new movies are coming out are to go look at the movie theaters. There are no advertising blitzes, there are no talk shows with the stars right before the movie comes out, etc. The movie industry has no enforcement capabilities.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Tommy
|
Cory Doctorow 12-26-2002
12:07 PM ET (US)
|
cypherpunks, substitute "television" for "Internet" and you've recapitulated Hollywood's 1950s-era arguments against licensing movies for broadcast.
Substitute "VCR" for "Internet" and you've got the 1984 claim against the Betamax.
(substitute "music" for "movie" and "radio" for "Internet" and you've got the claims of the class-action suit Vaudevallians brought against Marconi)
Some people prefer free stuff. Others are driven to buy more. Bottom line is, you can't sell something that no one's heard of. Every new medium has expanded the reach, bottom line, and popularity of Hollywood. Every new medium deprived Hollywood of one revenue stream and gave them another.
The Macrovision argument doesn't wash. Macrovision didn't show up in VCRs for more than a decade after they were legalized. What's more, even Hollywood's staunchest defenders will tell you that Macrovision is not a technology for stopping "pirates" -- i.e., the people who sell cut-rate, commercial copies of movies. It doesn't even slow down "pirates."
Macrovision is only meant to control what "average" users do. It's to stop Dad from making a second copy for the cottage, or Mom from duping a video for the kids' playroom. It "keeps honest people honest" -- IOW, it keeps honest people in chains.
|
cypherpunks 12-26-2002
11:31 AM ET (US)
|
I don't think anyone denies that personal movie piracy (a la mp3 sharing) is still in its infancy. The question is, as bandwidth grows and more people participate, will file sharing start to cut into movie revenues. And it's not just the theatrical shows, the greater threat is to the rental and sales market. Will people still use PPV or Blockbuster to see a movie if they can download it for free? It seems obvious to me that some will prefer the free download.
As far as VCRs, don't forget that Valenti succeeded in getting Congress to mandate copy protection. He got his wish! Maybe VCR based movie piracy would have been a lot worse without Macrovision being built-in to everything. From Valenti's perspective that whole episode may have just confirmed his worst fears.
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
347
(Unique:
285
) / Subscribers:
2 | What's this?
