What is Digg?184 Comments
- AllenS, on 10/12/2007, -14/+122I'm still gonna download movies...
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+89Lame. They don't mention the negative effect on revenues of it costing $100 to take your family to the movies. Also, I'm sure that they're assuming that every movie downloaded would've been money flowing into the studio's pockets. Also, they don't mention that that money was inevitably spent somewhere else in the economy. Lame.
- cypher35, on 10/12/2007, -4/+88anyone care to explain how they arrived at these figures?
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+67@cypher35
It's funded by the MPAA. What were you expecting, flowers and candy? - philomatic, on 02/08/2009, -2/+58Funny, I thought Dead Man's Chest had huge box office sales?
- Terc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53Yeah, I would like to review their data.
In response to an earlier study they did: "The MPAA's recent LEK study into intellectual property theft has been dismissed by the UK's Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness (ITfIPA) as inaccurate and out of date," says N2N News.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9155
I smell *****. Then again, that's how the MPAA likes it - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51i440, if someone steals from me, I'll contact the apropriate authorities. If they share the easily reproducible products of my labor (code, in my case) with their friends, I'll thank them. You seem to be confusing the two activities.
- Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42"Funny, I thought Dead Man's Chest had huge box office sales?"
It did. It in fact exceeded expectations as far as ticket sales go. Of course when other, crappier movies don't do as well as expected, piracy is blamed, but when a movie does better than it was supposed to, nothing is said. - ohhhL3ThaL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43No one has ever pirated Gigli. Ever.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Is this how "From Justin to Kelly" went wrong?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34This is ***** -- this is not the cost of piracy -- its the cost of stupid movies being released. We haven't had a blockbuster in like 5 years! Blame the studios themselves for this stupidity. They didnt listen when people said they hated 10 minute waits before movies full of commercials. The industry doesn't give a ***** about the customer! I'm gonna download some films later -- ***** you MPAA for ruining yourselves!
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29"The research is based on the outcome of the MPAA funded LEK study that revealed that the movie industry lost $1.3 billion in the US, and $6.1 billion worlwide."
Oh it was funded by the MPAA...enough said. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Maybe it's the cost of:
1) Letting your theaters go to sh!t
2) NOT kicking out people who talk or are obnoxious
3) NOT banning / blocking Cell Phone use
4) Charging $4 for soda and $10 per ticket
5) Putting out conistently crappier movies
6) Exposing us to 30mins of crap trailers and now television commercials?! WTF
nah... it's gotta be the pirates... - flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27you could replace the term "piracy" with "higher than ***** dvd and ticket prices" and it would still make sense.
- abid786, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I seriously doubted those numbers and after reading that the study is funded by the MPAA, I am certain some of them are total bull$hit. I have a hard time believing that 141000 jobs were lost due to piracy.
- spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22They release a 'study' like this every few months, just to remind washington that they need some kickbacks to finance their ten million dollar homes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+31If I'm not the first one to say...please LET me be the first one to say:
HORSE-*****-*****-YOU-GOD-DAMN-LIARS!
Okay.. time for bed now. :) - twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20@i440: Is piracy why box office records are broken every year? Most piracy is done because people don't want to go see it in theatres, and they won't whether they pirate it or not. If I download "Employee of the Month", I'm not pulling $8 from the industry because there is no WAY I would drop any amount of money to see a movie that ***** looking (which is becoming all too common these days). If they REALLY wanted me to see a movie, they wouldn't charge me $15 for a ticket then $8 for a small thing of popcorn to see a movie that was so incredibly stupid (texas chainsaw massacre: the beginning, gridiron gang, invincible). I will gladly pay money to see a movie I am sure will be good (I have paid to see Little Miss Sunshine 3 times now), but most of the time, it's just not worth it.
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18It costs 9.50 for a single admission, 6 bucks for popcorn, 3.75 for a coke, and I always have the awesome chance of the movie being ruined by an asshat with a cellphone? All these potential costs before I can even watch a movie that might not be any good. I'll turn off my torrents as soon as my ticket price goes back to 5 bucks which was only 3 years ago at my Century theatres and i'm pretty sure inflation in America isn't that bad.
- xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"Of course Rolex should also start suing the knock-off artists in China because they lost at least 5 billion by now!"
If they were to immitate the RIAA they would be suing the guy that bought the knock-off, not the ones selling. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20"Multi-million dollar movies aren't exactly 'easily-reproducible products of labor.'"
Well, it's most certainly a product of labor, and it's very easily reproduced (cp movie.avi moviecopy.avi), so I don't see how that can possibly be so. i440, to assume that making money off of work is dependent on imposing immoral restrictions on copying is just silly. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Don't you love how they come up with these numbers? Imagine if Ferrari came out and said they lost 1 Billion because they assume that every car thief was going to buy an F-1 or F-50. Of course Rolex should also start suing the knock-off artists in China because they lost at least 5 billion by now!
- digdigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14If the assumption of all these studies is that every pirated movie/music would actually result in a sale (and at a full price) if piracy wouldn't be possible, then this is bogus. I would be surprised if 1% of that would result in sales.
- ArcticCelt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16The amount of wasted money on lame overpaid actors playing parts in worthless movies that people pay to see 200 billions. Who gona pay us back for that one?
- irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I've been meaning to write an essay on piracy as a market force. There's no way you'll get the pirates to stop by either legislation or tech hurdles. The result is that piracy should create downward pressure on the cost/complexity of legitimately viewing a movie/dvd.
DRM aside, the iTunes Store has responded to that pressure by lowering the cost and barriers to buying music versus bootlegging it.
The MPAA however, are asshats who are trying to guilt-trip everyone into maintaining their obsolete business model. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@cypher35
"anyone care to explain how they arrived at these figures?"
Dartboard projections? Pulled from their asses? - BaldMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yes and it should also be illegal to go over to your friends house and watch a movie that he/her rented or netflixed, or listening to songs on the radio or at your friends house, because it is a loss of income to our poor movie studios and record companies.
This is not the first time in history that new technology has hurt old industries. Just think about how many jobs that were lost because of computers in the typewriter business. - Nir0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"But, by copyright law, if you don't pay for the movie, you don't have the right to watch it without permission of the copyright owner (AFAIK). "
If you don't pay for a movie, you have the right to watch it at a friends house who did buy it...
"It doesn't matter how small the loss is. Whether someone steals the calculator you just purchased or your car, it is still wrong in either case. "
Yea it's wrong to steal someone's car or calculator...it's wrong to go 62mph in a 60mph zone, it's wrong to tell your boss you came in at 8am but really you were in at 8:10, it's wrong to cheat on your girlfriend...it's wrong to download a movie and watch it even though you wouldn't never had payed for it in the first place.
"But think of it this way — there obviously many people (even those that would legally buy music if forced to do so) that, faced with the decision to ethically buy the music or unethically pirate it, would not hesitate to pirate, resulting in a loss for the entertainment industry."
Vast majority of pirates are college students with no money...if the vast majority of people who want to buy a cd can't afford to so they download it...they would not have bought it had they not been able to download it...that maybe "ethically" wrong and is illegal..it's not a loss to the RIAA.
" Some might not even know that it is immoral and would buy it if the knew the legal consequences of pirating. "
If you don't know something is immoral then it is not immoral to you. - Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And the Society For More Chicken thinks you need to eat more chicken. Self-funded information is not information.
- oSiBo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+84 words
MPAA funded LEK study.
That will be all. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8i think you mean "yarr harr harr!"
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14vitalstatistix, why? Why do we have to assume that simply because an action prevents another person from making as much money as they may have if we hadn't, said action must be immoral. The benefit to your community that results from sharing creative works greatly outweighs the harm that you just might be doing to a small group of professionals.
- foxsynergy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Stealing" a movie means sneaking up the stairs to the projection room, breaking down the film on the platter, running it off onto five to eight 2000' reels, and getting back out again undetected. And I've only done that *twice*.
FYI: Carrying film is a bitch. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7i440, I actually agree with you... to a certain extent.
I think that there is too much hyperbloly on both sides of this argument. Downloading movies illegally is NOT stealing, legally or morally. If you charged someone who used P2P of stealing, the case would be thrown out of court, and I simply did not buy any music before P2P, I listened to the radio, there has been no revenue lost because of MY pirating...
That said, not all people are like me, many of my friends used to get summer jobs just so they could buy music, they don't buy music any more because of P2P, and while pirating is not morally or legally equivilent to stealing, it's not exactly a good thing to do either.
People are up in arms about Cediga "stealing" code from Wine and not contributing back, ( this is a bad example as Cediga actually profitted from their "stealing" ) When anyone violates the GPL people are up in arms. Nobody "stole" that code, it's still there, the developers havn't been hurt directly, but they don't want their work to be used in that way, and people on Digg respect that. They respect that violating the GPL, copywrite violation, is wrong.
So I agree that pirating is wrong, and it may hurt a small amount of people, but it isn't the end of the world. And indeed I believe that I have had access to more culturally eclectic things because of pirating, so maybe pirating helps society in that respect.
My point is, just like anti-drug campains, you don't get anywhere by hyperboly, if you tell kids that smoking weed will kill you, they won't respect your opinion because you are lying. There is a middle ground somewhere, I am not quite sure what it is, but it is not the view of the Digg mob or the RIAA MPAA mafia. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well if you were the MPAA and had to put out a report on how much money you lost, you would probably exaggerate a bit to make a point.
- Nir0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Not only was the study funded by the MPAA which completely invalidates it...but any study done to estimate losses due to piracy will be innacurate. Just because I downloaded a movie doesn't mean I would of bought it had I not been able to download it...so does that count as lost revenue? If 1000 people downloaded the cube, how many of them would have actually purchased it if they couldn't download it? 1? 50? 1000 downloads @ $20each is a loss of $0-$20,000...but probably under $100, nobody can ever give anything near accurate figures for revenue lost due to piracy.
Decline in profits? Probably. SUBSTANCIAL decline in profits? Probably NOT. - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8My bro works at a certain Big Box retailer and buys up new releases like a fiend... he has something like 8000 dvds... I havn't been to the theater or rented a dvd in years... I borrow from him... Tell me, is this hurting the movie industry?
Lets face it, hollywood puts out crap. maybe 5 films a year are worth seeing... - madeingermany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I can't believe the MPAA is such a bunch of good hearted people...
They claim, if they had $6.1 billion more they would pay $5.5 billion to U.S workers and $837 million in taxes.
5.5+0.8=6.3 -> they would even pay $200 million out of their own pocket if there was no movie piracy! - jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"just because something is expensive does not give you the right to steal it. A ferrari is expensive, does this give me the right to steal it?"
It's not stealing ***** - it's copyright infringement. They give it a different name because it is different. - matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Don't forget the 10 minutes of ads before the movie.
I don't download movies that are still in the movies, because the quality is just terrible. I just wait for the DVD and either buy it if I really like it, or just rent and/or copy it. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Exactly. Who would be insane enough to pay $10 for a movie........ and enough ads that I'm sure they're making another couple bucks for each person. Pick one. Admission or ads. Not both.
- ChrisGranger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can someone tell me how downloading movies is costing the movie industry billions but borrowing books from the library is not killing publishing?
Do these clowns honestly think that every movie downloaded is a movie that would have been bought on DVD otherwise? 'Cause I can tell you, some of the movies I've downloaded weren't worth a second viewing (or even a first). If I download something and think I'd like to own it, I'll buy it.
I don't see downloading affecting theater ticket sales much at all. Watching a DivX on my computer and watching a real film on the big screen are completely different. With their logic, TV would be killing theater ticket sales. - optimo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12They'll never take us alive
Mwah ha ha ha < /sinister> - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Actually, when I worked at a movie theater several years back (a National Amusments theater, a rather large chain) ticket sales paid for not only the facilities but all of the salaries of the employees and the concession stand supplies. Consession sales were 100% profits, and they make millions on it.
- dampeal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7what does it matter really, pretty soon there won't even be movie theaters... everything will be straight to DVD/BR/HD etc.. and online.. They'll come up with some goofy marketing scheme to promote new releases..
- priceless721, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ok so the american people cant afford to pay for these ridiculously priced movies and so people lose their jobs and they act like we r greedy some making minimum wage hahaha what about the electronic giants and the car companies and super shopping centers that pay nothing and fire off tons of people at a time so there stock will go up and a few people can then live in ultra luxury and have their own movie theater and are sent screener movies to watch before its out and pay nothing for them because they are part of an "academy" and ***** are they not pirates that its also ok for them to personally make a decision that impacts peoples lives and then make up some ***** study to make us look like the criminals so they can get off scott free. i am calling *****!
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4how did this make it to the front page????? i mean SERIOUSLY!! WTF?
look at box office figures.. still breaking records
look at DVD sales.. breaking records (even flop movies that don't recover their budget at theaters will still profit, due to DVDs)
maybe if they threw less money away on DRM and multi-million dollar legal teams, suing their customers, they'd make more money. most people don't spend less money monthly because they download movies. true, some people don't spend any money on movies because they can get them for free, but at the same time, people who download movies can lead to additional sales (Dude 1: "hey, have you seen [movie title] yet? it rocks! i just downloaded it last night".. Dude 2: "no i haven't, i'll check it out" *Dude 2 goes and buys the DVD*) - Nir0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"
“nobody can ever give anything near accurate figures for revenue lost due to piracy.
Decline in profits? Probably. SUBSTANCIAL decline in profits? Probably NOT.”
You are contradicting yourself
"
Before I respond to this let me just clear something up:
Contradict:
1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
2. To deny the statement of. See synonyms at deny.
3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.
If I say that nobody can give accurate figures for revenue lost...and then I say there's probably some but not SUBSTANCIAL losses (6.1B being substancial incase we're still not on the same page here)...that doesn't exactly work with that definition of contradict...maybe I'm missing something here.
Thanks for ignoring the rest of the post and making another weird, innacurate statement...you really do believe these MPAA studies, don't you. - priceless721, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@darkcyde
seriously dude you are horrible at making analogies that was probably the stupidest ***** i ever read man. Steal a ferrari? I am sure if it was affordable we would all gladly pay for a car. But if movies cost ridiculous amounts to go see and are not even good then what are we gonna do? if it was reasonable to see a movie and didn't screw my bank account i would see more. thats right more, i still go to a theater and if a movie is good i see it twice no kidding saw "cars" and "silent hill" twice they were worth it but if a movie sucks donkey balls then i never want to see it and certainly don't want to pay for it.
And doesn't this stop real crime like kids sneaking into movie theaters and getting busted and causing taxpayers to pay for it but instead they are at home downloading it with there parents around not whoring themselves for drugs on the street haha thats what i call spin friends. - PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This just in: Lame, industry-funded studies cost U.S. economy 2.1 billion in 2005.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is