Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Study Shows That BitTorrent Piracy Doesn’t Affect U.S. Box Office Profits

This is topic Study Shows That BitTorrent Piracy Doesn’t Affect U.S. Box Office Profits in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007178

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-12-2012, 12:01 PM:

Study Shows That BitTorrent Piracy Doesn’t Affect U.S. Box Office Profits

quote:
by Eric Limer | 11:53 am, February 10th, 2012

Ever since what seems like the beginning of time, or at least the beginning of widespread digital piracy, groups like the RIAA and MPAA have been projecting their losses by assuming that every illegal download was actually a legitimate purchase lost. While the problems behind that logic may be clear to you or me, the fallacy persists in a lot of anti-piracy arguments. A new study, Reel Piracy: The Effect of Online Film Piracy on International Box Office Sales, has shown that BitTorrent has not had any actual effect on U.S. box office earnings and that a large percentage of losses due to piracy abroad may, in fact, be the movie industry’s own fault.

According to the study, the factor with the largest impact on piracy is the delay between U.S. and international releases of films. Because of the delay in international releases, often the only way to get a film may be to pirate or wait. Given that choice, anyone who doesn’t want to wait has to turn to piracy whereas if a legitimate venue of purchase was available, at least some of that revenue could be retained. The study estimates that if this pre-release piracy binge were eliminated — by releasing earlier, or simultaneously with the U.S. — overall losses could be reduced by 7%.

Furthermore, the study finds that the rise of BitTorrent has had no material impact on the U.S. box office revenue; U.S. box office revenue has not noticeably decreased. Considering the fact that international piracy seems to be caused primarily by unavailability, this would make sense; in the U.S., there is always a legal option at the get go. So how can all this piracy be happening, but not affecting revenue? Consider one of the oft neglected laws of piracy: Lots of people will only be interested in your stuff if it’s free.

Here’s a little cobbled-together, circumstantial evidence to back this up. Are you surprised to hear that Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is the 10th top torrented movie of all time? Or that Green Lantern and Fast and Furious 5 took home numbers 15 and 25 (respectively) on the top searches of 2011 at a top-five torrent site? Why are these mediocre films hitting so high? Because they’re the kind of movies a lot people will watch only if they’re free.

Now none of this is to say that piracy still isn’t an issue of some sort, but rather it’s to say that it may not be as big a deal as the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe. Beyond that, the study’s real contribution is that it supports the idea that piracy is less a legal problem and more of a distribution problem. Maybe instead of making piracy harder (difficult, probably impossible) the movie industry should be focusing on making legitimate copies of films easier to buy and maybe better than the pirated versions somehow (less difficult).

https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-piracy-doesnt-effect-us-box-office-returns-study-finds-120210/

http://www.geekosystem.com/bittorrent-box-office-study/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986299

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2012, 08:26 PM:

quote:
Why are these mediocre films hitting so high? Because they’re the kind of movies a lot people will watch only if they’re free.

It's sort of a stupid argument, the way people keep saying "Most of the downloaders wouldn't have paid for the content anyway, so the industry is not losing as much money as it says it is, therefore downloading really isn't that big of a problem."

Well that's not really the point. The point is, the downloaders are GETTING SOMETHING of value without paying for it. Whether they would have ever paid for it legitimately makes no difference at all.

In other words, what they are doing is wrong. It is stealing. It is theft. They're taking somebody else's work and using it without paying the asked-for price.

This whole notion that everybody should just be able to have whatever they want for nothing when it comes to "content" is ridiculous.

I wish the stupid media and the industry pundits would try to get THAT point across instead of beating the old "billions of dollars lost" dead horse over and over.

Do some downloaders "sample" the product and then, if they like it, go out and buy it? Definitely, yes. But they're not supposed to be able to take the whole thing and "use" it before they pay for it. That's the same as if I went to a restaurant and ordered a big meal, ate it, and then said MAYBE I'll pay for it, if I like it -- but maybe not.

This is why we have things like trailers, reviews, and word-of-mouth.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-15-2012, 09:36 PM:

So therefore we need to intrude on the people's personal liberties by attempting to pass crap like SOPA, PIPA and ACTA? No way. We are becoming more and more like communist China every day which is exactly what outfits like the RIAA and MPAA want. They are just going to have to accept that they are not able to squeeze every single dime out of people and move on. It's called reality and not everyone gets what they want. Boo hoo.

Also, you cannot judge movies by trailers and the price of movie tickets are too god damned high. It's best to avoid the theater experience altogether and rent it when it becomes available.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2012, 09:57 PM:

Last Saturday night I took my then-girlfriend to the movies. She wanted to see Safe House. I bought a large popcorn and large drink for $14. Thank goodness we shared those items.

Regarding the whole movie piracy thing, I have no sympathy for Hollywood studios on this one. If the issue really truly mattered to the studios they could put a stop to most of it by clamping down on the use of DVD screener discs. If I was running a movie studio I wouldn't make any of the screener discs at all. If any actor or critic wanted to see the movie they damned sure could make arrangements to do so at a press screening in a theater or a private screening in a dedicated screening room. God forbid they have to stoop to watching a film in a standard movie theater with common folk.

The studios are acting like all the piracy occurs in movie theaters and that's just bullshit. The DVDs that are mass replicated in countries like China are sourced from DVD screener discs. They have video quality far better than what some bootlegger is going to acquire by smuggling a camera into a theater. And they often feature Dolby Digital 5.1 audio.

Sure, some pirated movie torrents are sourced from camcorder footage. IMHO, any dumbass that's willing to waste two hours of his life watching a movie from such a shitty video source isn't a customer worth pursuing in the first place. Such people are idiots with no sense of quality. These same people would probably still be willing to buy pirated movies duped onto VHS tape for a buck. Those aren't first run theater customers.

Basically, Hollywood needs to clean up their own house and back yard before they try to dirty up our lives with all sorts of far reaching legislation that arguably violates the constitution.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-15-2012, 11:10 PM:

Got this point-out the other day from my SMPTE group link on LinkedIn:

quote:
SMPTE to discuss technologies for preventing camcorder-based content theft at Technology Summit on Cinema (formerly Digital Cinema Summit) at 2012 NAB Show!

2012 NAB Show - Technology Summit on Cinema

Heh, sounds like SMPTE believes that camcordering is still a major piracy source worthy of discussion time...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-16-2012, 12:15 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
the price of movie tickets are too god damned high

The most recent NATO of California/Nevada newsletter says the average US admission price for the third quarter of 2011 was $7.94 (down $0.12 from the second quarter of 2011). By way of comparison, the average admission price in 1971 was $1.65. That 1971 ticket would cost you $9.22 in 2011 dollars.

Even with inflated premiums for 3D movies, a movie to day is still cheaper than it was 40 years ago. Furthermore, the federal minimum wage in 1971 was $1.60 and in 2011 it was $7.25. The simple fact is that about an hours work at minimum wage translates to one movie ticket - in 2011 just as it was in 1971.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 12:34 AM:

I don't give a shit about 1971 prices. But prices these days are approaching $10 a ticket which is half (or even more) the price of the Blu-ray which I can watch as many times as I want forever and ever in a controlled environment at my leisure. Which gives me more bang for my buck? The Blu-ray, definitely. So do $1.50 a night Blu-ray rentals. The theater gives me very little bang for my buck. They can't compete. They are outdated. But Americans are stupid and will continue to spend money they don't have on bad deals like going out to the movie theater. Debt is addictive.

Since the studios call the shots, studios need to give theaters permission to lower their ticket prices. Lower prices will mean more people will come and no one could whine about piracy with lower prices in place.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-16-2012, 02:27 AM:

Joe, I've heard that logic before about cutting prices increasing attendance, but I have to call bullshit.

First of all, how much of a decrease would be required to have any significant change on attendance? Fifty cents wouldn't make much of a difference. Maybe a dollar? The reality is that in order to generate any meaningful increase in attendance, you would have to cut prices significantly. To the point where you have to ask if the increased volume will be adequate to make up the decreased revenue.

Secondly, the bargain hunters who would be lured in by lower ticket prices are not the people who would spend money at the snack bar. They are the people who will be stopping at the dollar store on the way to the theatre. Ok, so you lower the costs of concessions, but again you're left with the issue of having to lower the prices enough to drastically increase volume.

And even assuming you did lower all these prices and drastically increase attendance, you are going to increase certain costs because of more people to server.

And that's not even going into how the environment in the movie theatre would change. Ask any theatre that runs a discount day how their customers change on the discount day. Ask any movie lover who has gone to the movies on a discount day how they feel about the environment on those days.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-16-2012, 03:18 AM:

The average ticket price was $4.59 in 1997 which is equivalent to $6.45 in 2011.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 04:33 AM:

Justin, they need to make the tickets around $8 or so, tippy top. What are the advantages I get from seeing a movie in the theater vs waiting and paying twice as much for the Blu-ray or renting the Blu-ray for about 1/9th of the cost? Let's see:

1) - The "Big screen" experience. Fuck this shit. There are very few big screens any more and the ones that exist charge even more. While I would like a bigger TV for my entertainment room, seeing a movie on a 55 foot screen sitting 100 feet away wouldn't be more impressive than watching a 60 inch screen sitting 6 or 7 feet away with nearly the same image resolution.

2) - The "Big sound". Once again, this is bullshit. Movie theater sound sucks ass. Some exhibition execs like those at Regal would simply claim that I don't know what good sound is or that their theaters are "how it is supposed to sound", but both are absolutely untrue due to their incompetence. There are a few theaters throughout the world here and there that might be adequate, but over 99% of movie theaters have shitty sound. Oh, but of course I don't mean YOUR theater or anyone else's theater who participates here on Film-Tech. I'm entirely sure everyone's theater here has absolutely wonderful sound that we would all be proud of. Nobody here commits the atrocities we look down upon otherwise they wouldn't be members on Film-Tech, would they? I guarantee I'd be disappointed in the presentation quality of most members here. But there are some whom I'd admire their dedication to quality despite things being out of their control (mainly projectionists who have to work with shitty equipment and owners).

Little story: Brad and I once re-tuned all of the sound systems in a certain theater and when the tech got wind of it he yelled at me. I told him that we fixed the sound and that it was finally right. He screamed "No, you made it sound how YOU want it to sound". He was right. But I replied that the way I wanted it to sound was with the correct levels, EQ and phase.

3) - To "experience" the movie with a real crowd. The ONLY time this is an advantage is for comedies which are actually good because hearing other people laugh makes it easier for you to laugh. Otherwise shut the hell up, I'm trying to watch the movie! That right there negates the audience presence. "But but... what about normal movies that have bits of funny here and there that the entire audience can laugh at, like Pixar movies" you ask? No. Go away, I'd rather watch it without everyone. Bizarre stuff like Rocky Horror Picture Show obviously works better with an audience (so I hear) but that is so far beyond my taste that it does not equate.

4) - A night out on the town, great for dates! No way. It's great for people who don't like to talk to each other, but again you can do that at home with Blu-ray. It is actually anti-date since unless you're talking during the movie, you're not making much of the date (insert predictable jokes about making out here). There are many things you can do that are more fun and less wasteful than going to a movie theater. I have also never sat in a movie theater that was comfortable, either. I MUST put my legs up if I am going to be parked on my ass for over an hour and sitting in the weird sections that allow this degrade other aspects of the theater.

5) - The delicious movie snacks from the concession stand enhance the moviegoing experience. Only for stupid and/or fat people. I never, ever buy stuff from the stand. You don't want me at your theater because I will destroy your per-cap and complain about your shitty presentation. Eat before going to the theater and save a fortune, people! Is it any wonder why people make idiotic decisions with their money and why we're in a financial crisis? Hardly. People love being stupid with their money.

6) - You get to see the movie when it is brand new. THIS. This is the best and only good reason to go to a movie theater. They have exclusive product and people are impatient, they want shit NOW. This is the only advantage movie theaters have over Blu-ray and is the main reason why theaters still exist.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-16-2012, 06:17 AM:

What Joe said...which is why I say move the release windows back...keep them in theatres exclusively for over a year. As the window gets smaller, many people are just opting out of the theatre experience. One need not wait very long.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-16-2012, 06:27 AM:

Joe and Bobby make great points. I agree with just about everything they said. The studios press probably hundreds of screener disks and send them all over the place in a format that offers 100% resolution in picture and sound in a format that is very easily copied, and then they get upset at third parties when those duplicates show up everywhere.

And then they get mad at film collectors calling them pirates and thieves and everything else, when in fact they're trying to save and preserve the studios' films so they can continue to be enjoyed in the future. Hollywood is pretty screwed up on this. They worry about print storage costs... sell a hundred prints to collectors and they will store them for free! It's called a win/win. No, instead we're going to digitize everything, which I still predict is going to a) cause a preservation nightmare within ten years, and b) start movie theaters on the path of obsolescence.

We'll see.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2012, 11:39 AM:

I totally agree with the point about the screeners. They are evil. But, there IS a lot of camcording going on. We get the NATO camcord report every month or so and it's got a pretty long list of places where camcord people are caught. So it's not like screeners are the WHOLE problem.

quote: Joe Redifer
the Blu-ray which I can watch as many times as I want forever

I think it's dumb that people think they are getting the same thing when they buy a video and watch it at home. Nobody ever says they'd rather buy a Springsteen video than pay $100 a pop to see him in concert from a crappy uncomfortable seat 600 feet away in a hockey arena.

There are people like Joe who just don't like going out to movies. That's fine. But, to me, watching a movie at home is just staring at your own furniture for two hours. Watching it in a theater is getting out of the house, living a little, socializing with a group of friends. Then maybe you go out for a beer afterward and talk about the movie. Half the time when I watch a movie at home I fall asleep in the middle of it.

Steve's point about making the window longer may actually be starting to sink in. I saw an article a few days ago that mentioned that a lot of people THINK the video comes out within a month or two after theatrical (when the average window is still just over four months) and therefore they wait for the video.

If it wasn't for the fears of piracy, the studios might take this to heart and lengthen the window back to reasonable levels. But due to the piracy hysteria that probably won't ever happen...instead they'll shrink the window even further, hoping people will pay $50 or $60 for a day-and-date release....and piracy will get even worse.

quote: Joe Redifer
no one could whine about piracy with lower prices in place

I think even if it only cost a dollar to go to the movies, people would still download illegally because it's "fun" and they're getting something for nothing. People only think they're stealing if they actually pick up something they don't own in their hands and walk away with it. Mouse clicks don't count.

The real irritating thing is people who say that being concerned about piracy is "whining." Since when did stealing content become a good thing? It's a BAD thing. The fact that people are going to continue to do it no matter what isn't a point of pride for the computer-users of the world.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2012, 03:52 PM:

Running down some of Joe's points:

Re. #1: Big Screen Experience
1080p on HDTV or 2K in the movie theater looks good scaled up to only so large a size. TV manufacturers are now selling TV sets that measure 6' or 7' diagonally. Unless you sit back a farther distance the picture starts getting soft when 1080p content is scaled up that big. Likewise I'd rather watch 2K digital projected on a standard sized screen rather than blown up to soft and mushy quality on a 80' wide screen.

Re. #2: Big Sound
I think this was the same theater Joe and I visited on Denver's south side. They eventually made sure to undo the corrections Brad and Joe made, with the end product being bland, not so dynamic sound.

Re. #3: The Crowd Experience
Right now the theater crowd is the biggest problem with the movie-going experience. Too many people farting around with their phones and doing other inconsiderate things. Even personal hygiene comes into play. The lady I took to the theater last Saturday night had much of her viewing experienced ruined because the lady sitting to her right had horrible breath. I didn't know about this until after the show; I might have offered to switch seats. But I'm glad I didn't in retrospect since some very under-handed shit went down with her earlier this week.

Re. #4: Date Night
Yeah, I'll take ladies I'm seeing to the movies. You can't do much there other than hold hands. If you're sitting in a back row you can get away with more kissy kiss nonsense. Flip up the armrest and let her rest her legs across your lap. OTOH, I can do a whole lot more with a girlfriend in my living room while watching a Blu-ray disc. And if things get too hot you can hit the pause button and take care of business!

Re. #5: Snacks
This is kind of another date night thing. About the only time I make a significant purchase from the snack counter is if I'm taking a lady to the show. They want popcorn and I don't want to seem like a cheapskake. If I'm going alone I'll probably skip the counter entirely, but I'll buy something if I'm in there on a discount pass.

Re. #6: Exclusivity
If new movies were released on home video and in movie theaters simultaneously it would literally kill the commercial movie theater business very rapidly. People are price conscious. Some die hard movie fans would probably still go to the theater, but not enough to keep the vast majority of theater locations operating in the black. Then the movie industry itself would experience a very severe decline due to the disappearance of the best showcase to advertise their best product: commercial movie theaters. Without movie theaters any movie would be a made for TV movie.

One thing I think does need to happen regarding "windows" is that movies should be released in theaters across the globe all on the same day. There's little need anymore to stagger international release dates. That would take away one of the motives of Internet piracy. Quite a few downloaders are in foreign markets where a certain movie hasn't played yet. They have no other source to see the show than Internet torrents. The same thing should be done with the video releases too. Get the disc out in all territories at the same time.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I totally agree with the point about the screeners. They are evil. But, there IS a lot of camcording going on. We get the NATO camcord report every month or so and it's got a pretty long list of places where camcord people are caught. So it's not like screeners are the WHOLE problem.

Nevertheless, the camcorder guys are bootlegging what would essentially be a horrible quality download. Quite a few of the camcorder people are idiots just wanting to post snippets of movies to YouTube to get more people to follow them and stroke their own egos. They're not bootlegging out of a money-making motive.

On the other hand, the mass replicator outfits in China, Russia, etc. using DVD screener discs as good quality sources are indeed committing piracy out of a money making motive.

I turn my nose up at any pirated movie content whether it is on a DVD at a flea market or a torrent on Pirate Bay. It isn't as good as what I can watch on a Blu-ray disc bought via retail or rented at a video store. I value my free time and if I'm going to spend 2 hours of it watching a movie I expect the picture and sound quality to be in a range of very good to outstanding.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 05:41 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think it's dumb that people think they are getting the same thing when they buy a video and watch it at home. Nobody ever says they'd rather buy a Springsteen video than pay $100 a pop to see him in concert from a crappy uncomfortable seat 600 feet away in a hockey arena.

Except that at a concert you are seeing "the boss" (of what profession, I'm not sure) in real life and as long as he's not lip-syncing, the performance will be different than what you'd get at home. However the movie is identical. The performances onscreen will be exactly the same at home. It is 100% identical except being at home is more comfortable and way cheaper. You are not seeing the actors in real life when you watch a movie at some theater. Of course, as a movie theater owner you will fight to the death to defend seeing movies in an actual movie theater is somehow better when it clearly only offers one advantage. If you're staring at your own furniture for two hours, you're watching a shitty movie with the lights turned up too much.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2012, 06:55 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Of course, as a movie theater owner you will fight to the death to defend seeing movies in an actual movie theater is somehow better when it clearly only offers one advantage.

Not necessarily. I sell (a few) CDs at work, yet I am fully convinced that buying songs online these days is way better than buying a 70-minute album with only four good minutes of songs on it. (Cue: Bobby Henderson with a rant about lossy compressed formats.)

We have a 55" screen at home and I love it; but it's still not as cool as seeing a movie in a theater, to me. But that's me, you are you and there's no way either of us is going to change the other's mind.

You also have to keep in mind that that majority of people DON'T have "home theater" setups. Most of them have a crappy setup. So the home experience may be cheaper, but "better" really depends on a lot of factors.

Even the equipment isn't always the deciding factor: My brother might have a really cool TV set but I would never watch a movie at his house because his kids would be running around all the time making noise and his wife would be asking us to "turn that down, willya?"

quote: Joe Redifer
you are seeing "the boss" (of what profession, I'm not sure) in real life

Shit, these days they bring gigantic video screens to concerts, so the bulk of the people spend most of the time watching it on TV anyway. You want to talk about a shitty experience... concerts are way worse than the worst movie theater and they cost ten times as much. Yet that's where the money is in music these days. Further proof that people love to get out of the house.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 07:02 PM:

Well the issue isn't me vs you, it's what keeps the public going to theaters and stopping piracy. I contend that with a slightly lower price, not enough to put the industry into a financial crisis but enough to encourage more repeated viewings along with other's ideas of simultaneous worldwide release and keeping movies in theaters longer would do a lot for the industry. I wouldn't like that last part, but it might be valid. But that will never happen as the studios want to make as much money as they can as fast as they can. Do home video releases slow piracy or exacerbate it?

quote: Mike Blakesley
Further proof that people love to get out of the house.

Maybe for some but if that were the case, people would leave their house all of the time for no reason. I think the big draw here is being in the presence of "the boss" and hoping he will personally give you a raise.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-16-2012, 07:10 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
But that will never happen as the studios want to make as much money as they can as fast as they can.

Agreed, which is why they keep shrinking the window and trying to raise the price. They can't seem to get it through their heads that people are already complaining about $9 movie tickets, so they're DEFINITELY not going to ever pay $50 or $60 for a first-weekend home video viewing (especially with all the limitations they want to put on it).

They screwed themselves when they allowed the whole one-dollar rental thing. They made all movies seem worth a dollar or less. I think the studios have done much more damage to the movie business than crappy theaters ever did.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2012, 09:41 PM:

Too much is never enough. The studios are constantly saying to themselves "Wow, we make a ton of money. What can we do to make more?"

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2012, 10:26 PM:

The problem is the movie industry is now controlled by Wall Street bean counters via parent global media companies. These guys are only concerned about maximizing positive cash flow to improve stock prices in the short term and they'll pull just about any stupid, short-sighted stunt to manage it. The $1 movie rentals thing is a perfect example of a positive cash flow gambit gone wrong. The home video rental industry is now in deep trouble over it. It's the same Wall Street types forcing movie studios to keep making the same predictable, bland content over and over again. Bean counter types and investors hate new (read: unproven) ideas. They only see a truly original movie as a very negative risk.

I think the same bean counter mentality is at the root of how Hollywood is handling piracy. They think all 300 million plus Americans are movie customers when that simply isn't the case. So they see every single download as a lost sale. They don't realize that quite a few downloaders probably would never have bothered watching the movie if it wasn't immediately available as an illegal download.

The other problem is piracy activity is overstated by the movie industry. Not all that many Americans are technically astute enough to manage illegally downloading a movie. Way too many Americans can't manage the legal files on their computer's hard disc. I see the movie downloading process as a time consuming pain in the ass. It's easier for me to just drive to Hastings and rent the Blu-ray or see it at the theater if I want to pay extra to see it during theatrical release. I doubt if I'm alone in having this attitude toward movie torrents. If the process was really easy I doubt if Netflix would have so many movie streaming customers.

The most frequent downloaders are people in overseas markets that have to wait months or maybe even a year or more after the North American release date to see the movie. Certain movies may never be available in some markets due to state censorship. A broad, simultaneous global movie release strategy would solve a big part of that problem and it would radically improve short term positive cash flow!

quote: Mike Blakesley
I sell (a few) CDs at work, yet I am fully convinced that buying songs online these days is way better than buying a 70-minute album with only four good minutes of songs on it. (Cue: Bobby Henderson with a rant about lossy compressed formats.)

Yep. I don't think the lossy compressed tunes are worth it. If I want to listen to lossy compressed music there are various ways to do so for free. Pandora and Slacker offer portable, free ways to listen to lossy compressed music. Just about any current hit tune and many older tunes are available on YouTube in music video form. I can run either HDMI or Toslink connections from my notebook to my stereo system to get the audio out of something better than my computer speakers (although the JBL branded speakers in my Dell XPS notebook aren't bad at all). Some online stores like HD tracks are starting to sell lossless compressed and even high res songs and album downloads. But the variety isn't nearly as wide as what Apple and Amazon offer at this point.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-17-2012, 10:00 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The other problem is piracy activity is overstated by the movie industry. Not all that many Americans are technically astute enough to manage illegally downloading a movie.

This may be true with something like BitTorrent, but there are sites now that will stream a movie much the same way as watching it on Netflix or like watching a video on a news site. This may avoid the problem of making illegal copies, but it facilitates the less computer savvy in viewing the downloads. If you ever visit a forum like Yahoo Answers, many of the questions posted are about finding these sites.

And I disagree with Joe on a couple points. First is that a small decrease in price is not going to change movie habits. Any decrease in price has to be large enough to create a corresponding increase in volume. A dollar or two is not going to make a difference to most people.

Secondly, I don't think there is any way to keep movies in theatres longer unless the studios decrease the number of movies being released and reduce the emphasis on seeing a new movie the opening weekend. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible since consumer habits have changed to where they have to see the big new movie as soon as possible. As it stands right now, most movies don't have enough legs to go past 2-3 weeks. And the ones that do run longer are the surprise hits that people go to because a friend recommended.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2012, 12:10 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
consumer habits have changed to where they have to see the big new movie as soon as possible. As it stands right now, most movies don't have enough legs to go past 2-3 weeks.

Ain't that the truth. I have found, unless it's a major word-of-mouth winner (War Horse being a good recent one), if we don't get a movie on the break or within the first 3 - 4 weeks, we might as well forget it. The bloom just falls off the rose too fast anymore.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 02-17-2012, 01:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Bean counter types and investors hate new (read: unproven) ideas. They only see a truly original movie as a very negative risk.

Can you blame them? Look at the list of the top grossing movies worldwide:

1) Avatar (2009)
2) Titanic (1997)
3) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)
4) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
5) Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
6) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
7) Toy Story 3 (2010)
8) Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
9) Alice in Wonderland (2010)
10) The Dark Knight (2008)
11) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
12) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
13) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
14) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
15) Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
16) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
17) Jurassic Park (1993)
18) Shrek 2 (2004)
19) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
20) Spider-Man 3 (2007)
21) Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)
22) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
23) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
24) Finding Nemo (2003)
25) Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

The bean counters are giving the people EXACTLY what they want!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-17-2012, 03:29 PM:

Care to adjust that list a little? Factor in constant currency (essentially ticket sales) and then...ticket sales as a function of population (how many people "could" see the movie versus how many actually did).

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 02-17-2012, 06:36 PM:

No, I don't, since the general point is still true. The plebeians of the world clearly want the same, mass-manufactured crap they've been given before.

Although I love the fact that the #1 and #2 highest grossing movies are based on original screenplays, from a writer/producer/director who can seem to get anything he wants from a studio that has been counting every nickel and dime on the budgets for the likes of Star Wars and X-Men for decades.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2012, 06:45 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Bean counter types and investors hate new (read: unproven) ideas. They only see a truly original movie as a very negative risk.

Because that's what it is, in the vast majority of cases. There is no way to guarantee a hit, but the mostly LIKELY way is to make a sequel, remake, reboot or adaptation of an already-proven property. If you were a studio suit, and knew that your career would come to a quick end if you green-light too many flops, how many truly original movies are you going to make vs. near-sure-things?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-17-2012, 06:59 PM:

No, the point you and the bean counters miss is that they have cultivated a smaller crowd and and that they are now catering to them...rather than catering to a larger crowd.

To put it in other terms...If I sell only root beer at a store...no colas...I will alienate my other customers...however, I will develop a root beer following and they will know that is what I sell...it will get to the point that if I deviate from selling root beer, it will likely hurt my existing sales. However, my sales will reach what I would have had if I had sold all of the soft drinks in the first place and not just honed in on one area.

By and large, the really big hits in this industry have not been the ones that followed the trend. The trend normally gets one diminishing returns.

What your stats didn't tell you is how many people this industry has taught to not patronize...all the stats you have show are those that do currently patronize like these sort of movies...well that is a bit self-fulfilling.

By looking at the size of the population and the percentage that go to movies you see just how big the pie is and how big a slice we are currently getting...then compare that throughout the cinema history.

It is true though...just like in gambling, the bigger the risk, the bigger the pay-off but at a greater likelihood of loss.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-17-2012, 08:51 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
By looking at the size of the population and the percentage that go to movies you see just how big the pie is and how big a slice we are currently getting...then compare that throughout the cinema history.

But you can't compare "throughout cinema history" because there has never been a time like this throughout history. A time when there were SO MANY other ways a person could be entertained without even getting up off of his butt. A time when a person could have hours and hours of entertainment delivered into the palm of his hand instantaneously for free. A time when people think watching a movie on a 3" screen is an acceptable way to experience it.

Sure the pie is a little bigger and our slice is smaller, but there are things competing for that pie that weren't even thought of when the "blockbuster era" began.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2012, 10:37 PM:

With so many entertainment alternatives, Hollywood is clearly on a self-destructive path if their parent Wall Street oriented companies only want to keep selling the same shit over and over and over and over and over again.

Eventually the public is going to grow fickle and stop buying. None of those bean counters know exactly when the public will become fed up and bail out of movie-going. But I guarantee it will happen at some point. Hollywood has fallen into financial crisis mode before in past decades and they're setting themselves up for the same thing again. Consumer tastes in entertainment can change very suddenly, far faster than a movie production line has time to adapt. And probably much faster still with the aid of digital technology and an Internet that is growing ever faster. By adopting this stupid "let's make the same vanilla shit over and over again" attitude the studios are ultimately dooming themselves to a really bad crisis.

The really funny thing is how the fundamental nature of showing movies is being changed (from 35mm film to video projection and various modes of real or faked digital 3D) yet the actual stories being presented are extremely re-hashed and conventional.

What the movie studios are presenting is akin to me walking into the grocery store and paying a high premium price for some generic, plain, vanilla ice cream that's wrapped in a glossy, 3D lenticular wrapper. It's bullshit.

Some years ago acclaimed screenwriter Paul Schrader wrote an article about the decline of Hollywood's movie output by measuring in terms of Oscar Best Picture nominees year over year. He brought up a year in the 1970's, 1975 I think in which The Godfather Part II won, but was up against classics like Chinatown, The Conversation and The Towering Inferno. In 1976, films like Network and Taxi Driver were up against Rocky, which ultimately won. In 1977 it was a showdown between Annie Hall and Star Wars. Then he compared those nominee lists to more contemporary lists and it seemed so lopsided on how much better the 1970's choices were. Hollywood was really having to try back then, in part because the industry was in some real trouble. They were forced to survive and forced to take chances on lots of not so conventional filmmaking ideas. Even Star Wars was an extremely risky, unproven idea. If George Lucas were trying to break the same kind of ground today I guarantee those Wall Street bean counters would never have allowed it to happen. Further, they would have pulled Francis Coppola off the set of The Godfather before he could film the riveting assassination scene inside the restaurant.

These days the Best Picture Oscar thing is pretty anti-climatic. To me, the last real contest in the Best Picture Oscar category was between Titanic and L.A. Confidential for the 1997 prize.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 02-18-2012, 01:28 AM:

Steve, that's really not a great metaphor. The store isn't only selling root beer.

Paramount released 15 movies in 2011, plus added grosses for six additional movies from 2010. Of those 15 new movies, the top five grossers for them was a sequel (Transformers 3), two comic book adaptations (Thor and Captain America), another sequel (Kung Fu Panda 2) and a sidequel (Puss in Boots). Those five combined for 52% of their domestic gross. It's not until you get to #6 and #7 that you get to original properties (Super 8 and Rango), and the only reasons those got made was because the studio wanted to keep J.J. Abrams and Johnny Depp happy. After that, two more sequels (MI4 and Paranormal 3) and a quickie Justin Bieber documentary.

Go back a year and what do you have? Another 15 new movies released, and the top ten consisting of four sequels, two remakes, a book adaptation, a live-action adaptation of a sister company cartoon and two original works.

Keep going back, whether it's Paramount or Warners or Disney or Sony or Fox or Universal, and seventy-five plus percent of the time, their top releases of films in terms of gross ticket sales are from a remake, a sequel or an adaptation, or some combination of the three. In fact, of the six majors, their combined top ten grossers have 16 originals and 44 are remakes/sequels/adaptations. So that's only 73.33%. Sorry to overestimate.

This is our modern history. Audiences want the safe and familiar, and the studios know how to market that. The Vow is a perfect example. It's not based on a Nicholas Sparks novel, but damn it if I didn't know that until I looked it up. It was perfectly sold as something safe and familiar. Hey, you loved Rachel McAdams in The Notebook, and you loved Channing Tatum in Dear John! Now here they are, together, in a movie that's just like those moves! Come give us an over-performing opening weekend! But if you're not into that, Fox is releasing a Star Wars movie! And in 3-D! Star Wars! You loved Star Wars! But if you aren't into that and you aren't in to romantic drama, Universal got you some Denzel movie. You love Denzel! We all love Denzel! Who the hell doesn't love Denzel? King Kong ain't got s**t on him! And if you got a family, there's Big Miracle. Everybody loves whales!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-18-2012, 03:01 AM:

And to add to what Ed is saying, there are plenty of very good movies released every year which are not sequels or adaptation of comic books or TV shows or popular book franchises. Unfortunately most of the movies fail to draw an audience.

Just a couple nights ago I watched "Never Let Me Go". I can't say I loved it, but it was much more interesting than the average wide release. It had a good story, well developed characters, and so forth. But it made a whopping $2.4 million at the box office.

There are plenty of other options available through the year, but audiences have shown over and over that those are not the movies they turn out for. Moviegoers generally want mindless entertainment that allows them to check their brain at the door.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-18-2012, 11:36 AM:

A little point about 1&2 on that list. They were very hard sells especially Titanic.Avatar was also a risk because of the unproven effects in 3d of all virtual worlds looking less than real.

A love story wrapped around the sinking of the Titanic with real dives to the real ship and a huge budget which would become out of control.No one was playing it safe here except trusting James Cameron's track record.If The Abyss came back to haunt either of these films,each could have been a Heaven's Gate like failure.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-18-2012, 11:06 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
there are plenty of very good movies released every year which are not sequels or adaptation of comic books or TV shows or popular book franchises.

Careful. By using the word "plenty" your sentence means there is a satisfactory amount of those releases and no more are needed. It can even mean there are more than enough of said type of movie.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-19-2012, 02:53 AM:

How about if I say "Many" instead of "Plenty".

I'll also add that a number of the small/arty films which wind up being less than good are still more interesting than many of the major studio releases.

Posted by Steven Stroud (Member # 6775) on 02-21-2012, 01:59 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Ask any theatre that runs a discount day how their customers change on the discount day. Ask any movie lover who has gone to the movies on a discount day how they feel about the environment on those days.

We run a discount day. $5 Monday. We also have some really amazing concession deals on mondays.

This, essentially, gives us a four day weekend. Our attendance is better on most Mondays than it is on Friday or Saturday. Couple that with our concession deals and you have some really great numbers. This is most apparent during the school year. I remember how slow mondays were when I worked for Cinemark and even during my time with General Cinemas... not the case at this place. Our per-cap is very respectable. It's proof positive that the people respond to lower prices.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-23-2012, 06:53 PM:

On the original topic of whether illegal downloads (not just torrents) hurt theatrical release box office figures, I think there may be a small effect, but largely, people willing to watch a movie that's been recorded off a movie screen with a camcorder tucked away are not going to be prime candidates to pay theatrical admission prices to see that movie.

That doesn't make what they're doing any less wrong or less illegal, it's just that I don't think these people would magically pay for movie tickets if illegal downloads were suddenly unavailable.

I think the point that the delayed theatrical release driving more people to download movies illegally has some merit. Studios create a demand by advertising the latest and greatest movie, but if the audience can't get it one way (going to their local theater), but they can get it another way (downloads, street vendor, etc.), they're going to do it.

Now that digital cinema is becoming more prevalent, the logistical challenge of worldwide releases is largely nonexistent. If anything, it would be a way to encourage conversions to digital cinema, as theaters could get a DCP now, or wait 3-4 weeks to get the film cans. That probably won't work because studios want to manage the marketing and release of their product, and such staggered/inconsistent releases would impact the first weekend's numbers.

This is also why I think that lengthening the home video release window would encourage more piracy. If they don't want to go to the theater to see the movie (reasons for this follow), knowing that they won't be able to see the movie for more than four months would encourage them to look for alternatives.

quote:
1) - The "Big screen" experience.
2) - The "Big sound"

Way too many theaters fall down in these two features. A decently-sized screen is going to cost you extra for the XD/ETX/RPX/IMAX/UltraScreen upcharge. That's like Taco Bell wanting to charge you extra for real meat in their tacos -- what would the market's response be to that?

Getting sound in the home that can beat a vast majority of movie theaters will cost an enthusiast approximately $2,000. This is not a sum that would scare away any enthusiast that wants to have an impressive sonic experience. Add another $2,000 and a decent room environment, and you will blow away any movie theater open today, bar none.

Good video in the home is a little more expensive, but not much. LED TV's that produce great pictures in the 60-70" range can be had for about $2,000. A really nice projector and screen can be had for about $3,500 total.

Take that $4,000 sound system, combine it with the $3,500 video system, and put it in a dedicated room that is up to the task, and you have an environment which will kill 95% of the movie theaters when it comes to sound and picture quality.

Most theaters lose in this competition, because even non-enthusiasts are likely not going to discern the difference between their inexpensive setup at home and what's in most theaters. So they can't compete with the enthusiasts, and they can't impress the non-enthusiasts. Not a good position to be in.

quote: Joe Redifer
3) - To "experience" the movie with a real crowd

Very rarely does the crowd add to the movies I see in theaters. Many times, I'm going on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, so there's usually less than a dozen people in the theater. The right crowd can really make a difference, and that's usually with comedies, but I remember a viewing of Jurassic Park that the collective reactions during the jump moments made them more enjoyable. For every great experience, there are many more with cell phone usage, talking, seat kicking, or other crowd-related disruptions.

quote:
4) - A night out on the town, great for dates!

As long as your home environment isn't offensive in some way (what's that smell?), cozying up on a couch is going to be much more romantic than going to a theater. There is the "going out" factor, but I think that's often overstated as a plus for the movie theater side of the equation.

quote: Joe Redifer
5) - The delicious movie snacks from the concession stand enhance the moviegoing experience.

Concessions with movies kind of naturally go together for many people. Cheaper ticket prices make for more concession sales in some theaters I'm aware of. Per-caps are higher than competitors for the same movies in the same markets (price for adult evening show: $5.50 vs $9.00).

quote: Joe Redifer
6) - You get to see the movie when it is brand new.

This exclusivity of product remains the sole reason that movie theaters don't fade into the sunset. Not because of any other reason except for the fact that most movie theaters do very little to deserve getting the money their customers are spending. Given an equal opportunity to obtain that product elsewhere, people would avoid substandard movie theaters in droves.

Am I happy with that? Absolutely not, as I make my money on the basis of people going to movie theaters. I just wish more theaters tried harder to attract their audiences...

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-23-2012, 10:19 PM:

quote: Steven Stroud
We run a discount day. $5 Monday. We also have some really amazing concession deals on mondays.

This, essentially, gives us a four day weekend. Our attendance is better on most Mondays than it is on Friday or Saturday. Couple that with our concession deals and you have some really great numbers. This is most apparent during the school year. I remember how slow mondays were when I worked for Cinemark and even during my time with General Cinemas... not the case at this place. Our per-cap is very respectable. It's proof positive that the people respond to lower prices.

Funny. I had that idea (except on Tuesdays) years ago, and no one wanted to listen.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-06-2012, 04:25 PM:

The irony of this thread:

I am attending NATO's "Movie Piracy" seminar tomorrow in D.C.

I'm looking forward to arguing with the reps from the MPAA and NATO.

Should be fun...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2012, 04:56 PM:

Let us know how that goes!

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 03-08-2012, 02:03 PM:

No arguing occurred.

I was very impressed with the rep from Paramount.

John Fithian was as professional as usual (didn't expect to see him there).

What I learned from this seminar:

There are still a whole bunch of idiots out there camming movies and getting caught.

The MPAA and the film companies are starting to realize that the individuals involved in these types of activities are not necessarily in it for the money. They have what I call the 'hacker' mentality - in that they just want bragging rights to the fact that they were the 1st to get the film out there on the 'Net - despite the fact that it is illegal.

Apparently the Mid-Atlantic area has become a hotbed of this type of activity. There were reps from Homeland Security and the Baltimore Police Dept.describing cases they were involved in.

They still do not want to recognize the fact that screener copies are getting out there and there was no real discussion of that subject (no surprise).

I learned more than I thought I would...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2012, 06:22 PM:

I'm not surprised the studio and MPAA reps would avoid the topic of screener discs being a preferred source for creating mass produced pirated movies (or high quality torrents).

If the studios acknowledged the fact screener discs are a source for mass produced illegal discs they would be forced to make their own internal policy changes about the discs. They would either have to eliminate the use of such discs entirely or produce very few and place severe restrictions on their use. Either solution would piss off various people with big egos who are too good to sit with other people in a movie theater or private screening room.

So, I think the MPAA and studio execs are actually willing to live with the problem to a certain extent. Leaving the situation as it is and just griping about it seems preferable to telling various actors, executives, critics and other VIPs they can't have a screener DVD and will just have to watch the show in a movie theater like the rest of the commoners.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-13-2012, 01:50 AM:

We are showing "The Artist" right now. Friday night, we had a lady come to the show and she told us that she had already seen the movie ... on a DVD. I said, how's that when it isn't out on video yet? She said her son-in-law is a member of SAG and he gave her a copy he had gotten.

I told her he shouldn't be loaning his screeners out like that, he could get in big trouble for that, and she couldn't understand why. I told her this is how movies get out onto the internet, etc. She probably thought I was crazy. I'm tempted to turn the dude in, but I doubt anything would happen since at least he didn't mass produce the thing.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-13-2012, 03:02 AM:

Turn the dude in, nothing noticeable will happen. In fact he probably got it from another member, there's no way that ALL SAG members got DVDs. In order for something to happen, the MPAA would need to acknowledge it as a problem which they never will.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 03-13-2012, 09:16 AM:

Joe, ever since Lionsgate sent DVDs of Crash to every SAG member in 2005 and ended up winning the SAG Ensemble Award (and eventually the Oscar), the practice has become quite standard. Even two and three years ago, we were only allowed to accept SAG Nominating Committee members to screen possible SAG Award nominees at our theatre. Now, as soon as the nominations come out, all SAG members are sent Hollywood Movie Money coupons so they can see the films in theatres.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-13-2012, 12:57 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
Homeland Security

Nice to know they have their priorities straight.

Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 03-21-2012, 12:40 PM:

Screeners go everywhere and get passed around with almost total disregard. A family in-law is related to a member of the academy and without fail every screener is passed along within a week or two of receipt. The Cinea player (encrypted DVDs and a special player that had to be registered and 'unlocked' before it'd play) was designed to combat this but quickly got shitcanned for many reasons.

Now they're working on streaming via iTunes as an option. Quality concerns aside, that's the answer. You've the ability to limit content to specific accounts as well as control over when, where and how many times the content is viewed.

With dynamic watermarking you could prove precisely where and when a screener was 'ripped' (assuming such technology exists and I believe it does).

Heartily agree that the release window is the biggest challenge to box office revenues. We've gotten spoiled by very short release-windows. Good movies would have longer 'legs', Hollywood wouldn't have to churn out so much junk, and better content would bring in more people. But what do I know?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 03-21-2012, 10:03 PM:

Hollywood has been putting out crap movies for as long as there has been a Hollywood.

I've been going through some of John Willis' Screen World books from the 1970s and 1980s lately and I was astounded at how many of the movies from the major distributors I had never heard of. Ever heard of this one? Well, I'm sure some of the old-school projectionists here played it first run, but I can't imagine a PG rated movie coming out from Paramount Pictures today with that title.