Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Film Piracy Costs Hollywood $6.1 Billion
news.yahoo.com — Hollywood's major movie studios lost $6.1 billion in revenues in 2005 to illegal videos, DVDs and Internet downloads, which is about 75 percent higher than previous estimates, the studios' representative said.
cuoops- 120 diggs
- digg it
- Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -5/+118They lost my money because:
1. Their movie offerings pretty much suck.
1a. I dont want to see the majority of them the first time.
1b. Of those I do see, the majority of those I dont want to see again.
2. $1 theaters rock for a family of 4.
3. My 7.1 surround is better than that of the local theater.
4. My HiDef 109" projection room is better than the local theater.
5. I can pause at home.
6. Hotdogs are not $6.
7. I don't have to take off my pistol at home.
8. I don't have to feel like I NEED a pistol at home.
9. My car has never been broken into in my driveway.
10. I can smack my kids and send them to bed if they are not quiet.
10a. Other people dont like it if you smack their screaming little brats in the theater.
10b. Other people dont like it if you turn around and tell them to STFU when they are hollaring to each other about the screaming kids.
11. I can't be thrown out of my own house for MAKING OUT during a MAKE OUT movie.- Badfish, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3gold!
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6How much does making crappy movies that no one wants to pay for cost them?
- zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4who could possibly disagree?
- Yankees368, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yeah, about that. Hollywood is not losing any money if you are buying the movies and watching them at home. They have a problem when you download the movie, or buy a pirated version. But everything aside, it is true...most of the theatres in my area suck big time. The sound system is not up to date, the seats have springs that pop up your ass, it costs $10, the screen is smaller than my 50 inch HD display at home (not really, but it is damn close.
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You forgot
12. I can lift my feet up off the floor in my TV room without a crowbar. - mariusaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5No, sh**ty movies cost them money. Hollywood has lost their perspective.
- freakygeeky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Where do you live that you need a pistol when you leave your house?
- xLiKx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"10b. Other people dont like it if you turn around and tell them to STFU when they are hollaring to each other about the screaming kids."
AMEN! - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+413. I won't get reported to the cops at home for physically abusing my kids at home.
- Johndoe777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Films being produced costs ME an estimated 10.7 Bajillion Dollars! According to my studies, when people goto a movie theatre to see a movie, it means that they are no longer interested in sending their life savings to me as a donation for one of my many web sites. Further, the 'less than perfect' succses rate of my sites, can't possibly be because I make crappy sites.. no it is because the Film industry provides alternative entertainment.... Anyone wanna join me for a class action lawsuit and sue for damages against our sites?
HEY! if it works for them... it should work for us... - DrRo183, on 10/12/2007, -0/+614.? Overpaying ***** actors.
And seriously, going to the movies nowadays, here in NYC as everywhere else, has gotten way too expensive. I'd rather wait for a DVD and invite a whole bunch of people over to my place, watch it in comfort w/o screaming kids, and yell whenever we want. Plus, as Wolf451man pointed out, my surround sound and tv are good enough for me. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hollywood has lost money because: (in addition to list at top)
1. Actors are way overpaid to make ***** movies.
2. Hollywood produces ***** movies.
3. Just because you wasted money to produce yet another director's cut extended edition of movie X does not mean I will buy it again.
4. Those ***** films I did not go to the theatre to see... I will not purchase the DVD of (most are not worth a straight up rental from Blockbuster).
5. Don't blame internet downloading because the majority of NEW movies are not worth wasting my bandwidth on.
Just remember that when you point your finger at someone you point 3 back at yourself. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1..i've never felt the need to bring a ***** GUN into a theater (i don't own one). maybe you're just insecure and unable to defend yourself.
but the rest of the list is good.
- jfair, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48The MPAA paid for this "study". I think that speaks for itself.
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wonder how much this study costed. Perhaps they could give up trying to prove privacy hurts them and just save the cash. Yes, privacy hurts you, but maybe listen to the public which for the last 5 years has told you your movies have sucked. I heard on the news, Tom Cruise is worth 500 million dollars, now Im not ragging on Cruise but can anyone tell me the preformance he has done worthy of 500 million dollars? Some of his stuff is decent but halfway to a billion, when how for what?
Think about it, what movies this summer do you REALLY REALLY want to see? With me its Superman Returns and Xmen Last Stand and I pretty much willing to bet one will really really be crap. The other movie im kinda interested in SoaP but comon, a movie that people want tosee BECAUSE it will be bad, thats shameful that some studio is touting that. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes add that to the list of "lost revenue"
17. Paying for this "study"
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wonder how much this study costed. Perhaps they could give up trying to prove privacy hurts them and just save the cash. Yes, privacy hurts you, but maybe listen to the public which for the last 5 years has told you your movies have sucked. I heard on the news, Tom Cruise is worth 500 million dollars, now Im not ragging on Cruise but can anyone tell me the preformance he has done worthy of 500 million dollars? Some of his stuff is decent but halfway to a billion, when how for what?
- starbirix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31The only response I see worth giving them: "Prove it."
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Considering that the gross revenue for movies continues to rise, I'm going to agree, they are going to have an uphill battle trying to prove this.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm sure it doesn't help that they pay $20 million for big name actors to star in their movies.
I don't pay to see an actor. I pay to see a movie. Want to profit more? Stop paying dolts like Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey $20 million dollars. - Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seriously, how on earth can they justify these numbers? The only way I can imagine calculating these figures is taking profits before piracy by downloading or DVD copying was common (what, about 1998 or so?) and subtracting today's profits in sales. There's no consideration in there that profits may have changed because of what Hollywood is doing, though that's not only possible but likely. Screw them.
- motionb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21yea, this is based off the notion that all the people that got an illegal copy of a movie would have paid for it otherwise, HELLO, out of all the movies out there, I would only pay to see maybe 5 to 10 percent of them, the only way I would even watch any of the others is to download em, or not watch them at all. If the ones I download happen to be better than I thought I will go buy the DVD. They are counting money they NEVER had, how in the world can they think they are loosing money?
- Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Counting money they never had... I think you've nailed it.
- buso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they are watching all torrent sites like a hawk. got 2 'copyright infringement' notices from my ISP which they received from SONY and NBC for downloading a movie and an episode of "The Office". I didn't even think it was illegal to download a TV show. :(
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Besides the fact that the study is with out a doubt biased toward the MPAA, it also makes very inaccurate assumptions I'm sure. For example assuming that if someone illegally pirates a movie, that clearly means, that they would be willing to pay for it, if there wasn't a way to get it free - not true. I pirate movies, that I really liked in theatres but don't want to fork out the extra cash to see it twice before it comes to DVD, or I use it to watch movies I would normally not cough out the money for in the first place. If you were to organize a true, unbiased study, I'm sure the effects of movie piracy is if anything breaks even or could even be a positive effect, as myself and others have suggested and studied in the past. I personally will download a movie, I'm unsure I would be interested in seeing for any number (poor trailers, little press on it, no word of mouth) and if I like how it starts or even if I watch it all the way through I will recommend it to my friends, and go to see it at the local theatre in either DLP or IMAX, a reason for me and my friends to get together and really enjoy a good movie in the best quality possible. My friends also concur with me and say that b/c of music piracy they are actually going to more movies, or at least more than they would have, and buying more too, and seeing movies they normally wouldn't have thought to. If you search around you will find many much more unbiased independent research companies who have found much more positive effects than negative to digital piracy in general. The fact of the matter is the RIAA/MPAA/IFPA all have ignored the fact that they don't know how to market to the current generation....people will no longer put up with outrageous prices on digital media, especially as the industry as grown so much as of late. They will do anything they can....even alienating their market, to make more money through lawsuits. This won't stop unless the customers hit the breaking point, and finally everyone is fed up with their malicious tactics for gaining even more profits through public intimidation and deception.
- m3tallicAm4n666, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Because without my money, actors and producers will become beggers. Boohoo...
- OriginalOG, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2beggers or bloggers....or begging bloggers?
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It looks like they are really hurting.
http://gardenandhearth.com/Movie-News/Top-Grossing-Movies-2005.htm
10 movies made almost 2.5 BILLION in box office receipts. They'll make even more from DVD sales and rentals.
This kind of money makes me think there should be a racketeering investigation.
- yflo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I'm crying, it's so sad ...
- zhatka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6The part they left off, is that they made it all back in popcorn sales.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4individual theaters own the concession sales, that is why you have to give your first born if you want a popcorn and a drink. They don't make much on the box office sales.
- HumanIMDB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I read somewhere that if it is a "first run" theater showing the movie, they make less than $0.50 per ticket sold; the rest of the $15 dollars goes to the movie studio. That is why they have to charge so much at the concession stand; how else are they going to pay the wages of people that work there.
However, I also read that the reason the theaters are now showing ads before the movies is to keep the ticket prices "down". Have you noticed that the ticket prices have slowed their climb? Probably not. Instead the theaters are making money off their captive audience.
AND, because they are showing ads before the movies, they are losing some of their audience, so they have to charge more for the tickets, more at the concessions, and show more ads before the movie to make up for the lost audience...can anyone else see a cycle here? - Brewdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I've heard, those huge film reels used to play the movies cost a few grand each. Imagine running a theater and buying new ones for all six to thirty-six screens you own every time a new series of movies is released. They schedule the movies in blocks so that there is maximum between-movie concession-sales time. Buddies of mine working at theaters say they hardly break even with the absurdly inflated concession sales. Why don't they go to simpler formats like digital projection which couldn't cost nearly so much? Seriously, if I pay $6 for a hotdog, it had better be gold-plated. The system is inherently flawed.
- Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Has the MPAA considered the quality of the movies a reason?
- ColBond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Marking as inaccurate. The MPAA *wants* you to believe they're losing that much. There's no way it's that high.
- Sandkat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Did they really lose that much if the people who downloaded movies never would have paid to see it in the first place?
- H_o_p_s, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Losing $6.1 billion and failing to collect $6.1 billion are two separate things.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Wow, part of that first post makes me feel sad for americans if that's what they go through to see a movie in a theatre.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Don't be so naieve. 7 through 11 can happen anywhere in the world and are not common
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2..it's not just in america. any public theater is like that.
..except i don't own a gun, have never felt the need to own a gun nor take one into a theater, and my car has never been broken into from the theater parking lot. - IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sorry folks, in Canada we don;t seem to have the fear required to want to bring a gun, cellphones aren't that much of a problem since people seem to be more considerate, and car vandalism in the parking lot isn't an issue.
- bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7They lost money because they make crappy movies and then expect all of us to line up like sheep to see them
- goat4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13this is their "study": (Projected Earnings) - (Actual Earnings) = (Total Amount Lost Due To Piracy)
because in their minds, the movies caaaant be sucky can they? i mean, theyre all original! high budget = high grossing right? and the moviegoing experience is so luxurious and second to none. - scolbified, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6$6.1 billion is just a drop in the bucket compared to the money they could be making if they released movies that were actually worth paying for.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Boy, DVD-Rs sure are cheap...err.....
- Overdose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I used to work in a indie movie store, I love movies. But when I see what is in the theatres, im just stunned by the lack of thought put into the story lines. If they worked harder on making one good movie and not putting out tons of movies that all suck. They might get more people to go to the theatres and then not say they are losing so much.
- jgbiggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How can they "loose" something that they do not have? I irks me to hear this kind of reporting. You can't loose revenue. Most of the people acquire unlicensed copies of movies because they don't think the crap that Hollywood makes is worth a warm dog turd.
If it was worth something, they would pay for it.- Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't even think that most movies out there are worth my time and bandwidth to download for free, that should mean something to them.
- w3weasel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5 SHENANIGANS!
- shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Exactly what I was thinking.
6.1 BILLION? Billion!?!?! No way, not a chance. There aren't enough american's who are computer literate enough to pirate movies off the internet. Out of those who are, there are still a VERY large percentage who spend time in the theaters at $8 a ticket.
If they came up $6.1 billion short, it's because the movies are getting crappier, or it's because americans are getting tired of paying $8 a damn ticket (making a trip to the movies a $20+ event if you take a date and get a drink).
You can't just say "look, here's what we didn't make compared to our largest income year ever, it must be because of piracy!!!"
>.< ANGER - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36.1 billion / 350 million americans = $17.43
Hmmm.... if every single american from babies to the elderly were to miss ONE movie and choose a pirated one instead....
Yea, this is crap. Very few people actually download movies (the process sucks, the computer sucks for viewing etc...), Its pretty unlikely that those people would actually buy everything they download. And, how many people *really* say, that they are going to choose downloading vs. going to the theater? Not very many.
- shredswithpiks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Exactly what I was thinking.
- ionbattle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Bull...*****?
- SentOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Well I lose $20 everytime I go see a ***** movie.
- Optimal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Stickin it to the man.
- decksnfx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10MPAA-commissioned study assumptions:
1. Every movie that comes out is as good/popular as LOTR.
2. The average Chinese watches movies at the same rate Americans do.
3. The price of each HDTV sold in the world is added as as expense on the MPAA ledger sheet.
Yup...that adds up to about $6,500,000,000. - caldroun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How do they know what they have lost if they didn't have it?
(Hat tip to jgbiggs...didn't see your comment at first) - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4I beleive it. Piracy does cost them money. Rrealisticaly there are some basic truth to this, some people will take the free downloads, watch and not buy again. For movies there is not a huge repeat value that there is for songs (how many times can you watch a movie?), so if someones watches a pirated movie at ok quality, they're not likely to go out and buy it them.
People love free stuff, and if the choice is free or pay, free gets the business. (except the wall st. journal online which iseems to be the only paper that charges online)
Movie business accounting is a funny business (Forrest gump lost money?)
Basically bootlegging cost the movie business some cash. How can 5$ movies on the city streets not.
Piracy clearly cost them some cash. (not all downloads/ copies would have been sales though).
The movie industry DVD pricing seems ok, it the annoying trailers they make you watch at the front of the DVD that iriate me.- scooterbaga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the point most are making is there's simply no way for them to know it's 6.1 Billion. They%u2019re predicting something that didn%u2019t happen. Which fundamentally makes no sense.
A pirated movie is cheaper than the original whether it%u2019s free or just less money. The reason people get them is because they simply don%u2019t feel the movie is worth the $ it would cost them to own it. Which means given no other alternative they probably just wouldn%u2019t see the damn movie period.
Theatre attendance has been declining for decades. Probably because of the comfort level and the fact that we can't drink alcohol at a theatre. ...well you're not supposed to. - acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow...
Sugest piracy might actually be a bad thing for the movie industry,
get modded down.
Your right of course you'll never know how much it cost the idustry, as the fake DVD pressings aren't reported. Online downloading isn't a major problem because quite frankly its a bit of a pain, and is still mostly in the domain of college students..
The trouble for the industry is if it allows rampant piracy of high quality it is going to cut into its profits at somepoint. The pirates don't have to pay the money up front to make the movie, just for 1 copy of it (if that..). So the pirates have an instant economic advantage. If given the choice most people would buy the 5$ disc over the 20$ one, if it has the same content.
On the otherhand pirated copies get the word out so to speak.. But that only encourages the creation of sequels.. Spiderman 1,2,3,4...... Xmen 1,2,3,4... Starwars 1,2,3,4...
The value of the content is not equal to the cost of producing the disc. Its more complicated than that.
- scooterbaga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the point most are making is there's simply no way for them to know it's 6.1 Billion. They%u2019re predicting something that didn%u2019t happen. Which fundamentally makes no sense.
- bouche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've got 4 free passes for the theatre which I'll be using for The Da Vinci Code. Does that count as a loss?
Anyway, the free movie will cost me about 20 bucks after me and my girl buy popcorn and a drink to deal with the salt. - Smokezz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Yes, of course they did. Because every movie that was every downloaded... if the person couldn't download it, they'd have went to Best Buy the day the ***** thing came out and paid $20 for it!
- acejones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'd like to see a study of the amount of money we as americans have lost due to BS movies.
- LordSkippy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21 download movie != 1 lost sale. It doesn't even quite equal a potential lost sale, as some people will actually buy the DVD if they like the movie. However, raising ticket prices will equal lost sales, and we don't see the MPAA funding studys that say: "Movie Industry Lost $6.5 Billion Dollars Due To Ticket Price Hike!"
The secret to success is knowing where to place the blame for your failures. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They all still get way more money than they need, so who even cares?
- urbanaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9UPDATE: Hollywood stupidy in failure to upgrade their business model since the Internet has been mainstream for >10 years found to be the cause of $6.1 Billion in lost sales!
- alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4These numbers are always highly inflated because they assume that every thing that was pirated would have been brought at regular retail price when it would more likely actually not be be bought at all.
- edenlover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4When Hollywood launches a movie, RIAA recommends you to do this in the following order to avoid piracy:
- When a new movie is launched, go to the theater about 15-30 times with your friends, relatives, neighbors, work colleagues, people passing on street...
- Buy every merchandise that is related to the movie
- Pay-per-view on your TV like 50 times
- When it's launched in DVD, go rent it (because it's better than your crappy TV signal!)
- Then, finally, after 1 year, buy the 'Super super Special Collectors Edition Pack with 800 DVDs including the studio maiden's cousin interview) - Metabolife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I remember hearing about how at first they put out numbers that were greater than their total revenue. Then some MPAA executives thought it was just ridiculous so they cut back on what the considered "lost sales".
They consider you making a copy of a DVD you OWN, as a lost sale somehow. These people are the scum of the earth, they deserve to have people setting up their own theatre rooms and leaving their scam behind.
The closer the theatre company to the MPAA, the worse off you are. Loews theatre charges $9.50 to see a movie, and then even more for food. If you go to a privately owned theatre by my house however, you get better sound quality, $6 admission fees, and popcorn costing half as much. Just shows you how much prices can get inflated by scam artists. - kupodan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3dugg for the idioticness of it all. Last year was the absolute worst year for movies. The couple decent movies didn't get very much publicity and the others all stunk. They need to pull their head out of their rears and take responsibility for their own problems. Not blame those of us who DL movies. I don't know about anyone else, but if the movie is worth it, I go and but the DVD to get a higher quality version than what I have downloaded.
- Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree, this study is entirely suspect. Remember GODZILLA? It was a flop- terrible plot, bad acting, bad idea period- but i bet if that movie came out in 2006, and did equally as bad we would see its downfall as the result of piracy not it being a bad movie. Hollywood is out of ideas, and instead of being creative they seem to be making us pay for it, I visited a friend in NY last weekend- $12.50 to see a movie- ridiculous.
They are REMAKING REVENGE OF THE NERDS, for gods sake. I guarentee they'll blame piracy when that movie flops.- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are remaking Revenge of the nerds, wtf, it was a bad movie to begin with
- skatiN64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I believe the math in their "study" is, # pirated movies * 20 or 30 dollars.
I buy good movies. I download bad movies I wouldn't dream of paying for.
It's closer to 6 million. - theragu40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just because someone pirates a movie does not automatically make them a person who would have made a purchase in the first place. You can't lose money that was never yours to begin with.
- Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0YEs, but would you have had the opportunity to SEE the movie to KNOW you owuldnt buy it?
- pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no, you just wouldn't have wasted the money testing the waters
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A decade ago I used to go see probably 15-20 movies a year. Now it's around 2 a year. I also don't buy DVDs unless I know I'll watch them over and over again... otherwise it's strictly a rental.
I also don't pirate movies. They just plain suck lately and I don't want to watch them. - SeanMoney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Shoot, only cost me 15 a month.
- SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Good Hollywood needs to crumble, its nothing but a virus to our Culture.
- edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
They make assumptions like:
Every bootleg movie prevents a family of four from buying movie tickets. (plus popcorn etc)
Every bootleg movie prevents a real DVD sale.
Etc.
You end up with math that leads to: 1 bootleg movie sale or download = $80 lost revenue.
Not bloody likely.- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll give them the "1 Bootleg Movie prevents the sale of 1 DVD". I doubt many people who pirate movies are then going to go out and buy a real copy.
I don't agree with the "1 Bootleg movies = family of four at the theater, however" I have a family of four (young kids), and I don't go to the theaters very much anymore because:
a) I'm not taking my 2 year old to see King Kong. I'll wait and rent it.
and
b) It costs A LOT to take four people to a movie. Again, I'll wait and rent it on Pay-Per-View for $4 instead of $40 in tickets alone.
So, you can't assume that you were going to get the family of four to the theater... - thotpoizn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Chewie67: "I'll give them the "1 Bootleg Movie prevents the sale of 1 DVD". Idoubt many people who pirate movies are then going to go out and buy areal copy."
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I have personally done this several times. If a movie is good, I want to own it - let my friends borrow it - have it in my collection. Human nature I guess, to want to own things that are nice. But if I can barely stand to sit through the first 20 minutes of a ripped copy or my Netflix rental, well - that's a $20 bullet I just dodged.
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll give them the "1 Bootleg Movie prevents the sale of 1 DVD". I doubt many people who pirate movies are then going to go out and buy a real copy.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't lose money you didn't have to begin with.
Why can't reporters get that basic concept through their head before they copy **AA press releases verbatim? - Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why don't the MPAA and RIAA conduct studies about how much suing their own customer costs them?
- skyhighrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem is most people who pirate movies wont see the movie in the first place.
THey cannot just pick a number without providing solid evidence to back their claims. - pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let us not forget that we can wait for an extra 3-8 months, and they're in the $5 bin at wally world.
I can't count the ammount of movies I've walked out of the theater wishing I had my money and time back.
And also let's not forget them bombarding the *PAYING* customers with anti-piracy comercials on theatrical releases and DVDs. wtf is with that?
Such a vicious cycle, they raise the ticket prices, we stop going... less sales means they need to up the prices... - GrundlTerror, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$6.1 Billion? Keep up the good work guys, lets shoot for at least 12 next year.
- bonzooznob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As always, these studies miss one simple point.
x = number of pirated/copied/borrowed movies
(x * DVD_price) != (Total_Lost_Sales)
Reads: The number of pirated/copied/borrowed movies, times the retail price of the DVDs, does NOT EQUAL the total ammount of lost sales dollars.
If a person copies a movie, it does not mean, that they *would* buy it, if they couldn't copy it.
E.g. if some guy copies 250 movies, at ~$20 ea. that's $5,000. Does this mean that he has $5,000 lying around that he *would* spend on movies, if he didn't have a DVD burner? NO. - eXCeSS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Flagged as inacurate.
- GrundlTerror, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The study might be inaccurate...but the news story and asinine announcement is assumedly 100% true which is why this is interesting to read.
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+414. Clothes are optional at home
15. No 20+ min commericals at home (I do not mind movie trailers, in fact I look forward to them, but I do not need a Coke Commerical, I am in the theater, I am sitting down, I saw the counter when I arrived, I elected not to get a beverage, Some jackass saying "True" will not make me reconsider and trek back to the counter.) -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by