So in answer to the question "Why go to the movie when I can download it?" You go to the movie for a show. To watch it with an audience. And hopefully you'll get "film done right". But some people like to pirate. It's not something you can just talk them out of with common sense.

 |  IP: Logged

The Motion Picture Association has a Contact/Reward program for information that leads to the prosecution and conviction of anyone involved in film piracy:
http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/contact/index.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

So they are definitely there, but why would anyone with even a slight amount of "taste" even bother.

I guess that you don't need theatrical image quality and cinema-grade sound to enjoy a dirty-joke and teen-sex-titillation flick.

But is this really a threat to the movie industry? The article says that this film is expected to make over $100,000,000. So, figuring conservatively, let's say that 10 million people are expected to purchase theatre tickets. How many people are going to download the movie? Based on that wild-guess of a number, it would take 100,000 lost ticket sales to make a 1% dent in the expected gross of the picture. Plus, there's another factor -- the people who download the movie are going to talk about it with their friends -- the "buzz" factor -- and even if the movie is a stinker, they will probably review it more kindly because they felt that they saw it for "free". Some of them are going to watch the movie in a crappy little window on their PC, laugh their heads off, then convince a bunch of their friends to see it with them at the theatre. On the other hand, some people are going to not go to the theatre because they could download it instead. And, of course, a certain number of young teens are going to download it because it's the only way they can see a first-run R rated movie.

I suppose that in the long run, figuring out the effects of downloadable movies is an exercise in statistics -- or futility. Certain numbers of people will behave in different ways. No one knows. I think that it's worth pointing out that the brief period when Napster was operating just happened to also be the most profitable period in the recording industry in recent memory. On the other hand, people listen to music over and over again, but most people only want to see a movie once. Except for teenagers, who can watch the same movie over and over. But movies are probably too expensive now for teens to see over and over again in the theatre. I saw Star Wars a dozen times in 1978, but by then it was in the dollar theatre.

I'll definitely agree that downloadable movies are a threat to the industry practice of delayed overseas film releases. The end result of internet piracy may be to make simultaneous world-wide release of motion pictures more profitable then delayed release. But that's a common factor in copyright strategy -- if people want your product, and you don't give it to them, and they can get it themselves, they will.

This is true of trademarks, but not copyrights or patents. If you don't enforce a trademark, you lose it. This allows obsolete or unused trademarks to return to the public domain as companies come and go. Otherwise you would have a tremendous clutter of obsolete trademarks that would stifle commerce. Aspirin used to be a trademark in the United States, but Bayer didn't enforce it, and lost it. Interestingly, Aspirin is still a Bayer trademark in Canada.

Congressional authority to issue trademarks arises from the commerce act, not the copyright clause. The copyright clause requires limited times, while a trademark can essentially last forever (over 100 years so far for Coca-cola, for instance.)

It is quite common for companies to decline to enforce copyrights and patents. This doesn't mean that they lose the right to enforce those copyrights and patents later. For example, Unisys received a patent on the compression algorithm used in GIF image files. They didn't enforce the patent for years, and GIF became the internet standard for image files. Then, all of a sudden, they started enforcing the patent, and all of the companies that had been selling image manipulation software had to pay up. The result is that GIFs have largely been replaced by JPEGs, which are unencumbered by patents.

Same for copyrights. Many newer bands now permit audience recording of their live concerts and non-commercial trading. The fact that they permit this does not cause them to lose their copyrights. Otherwise they'd never allow the practice.

You're right about digital projection being a risk. By embracing digital projection -- and the distribution of motion pictures as computer files, the industry is about to shift from one of the hardest-to-duplicate media formats in the world (duping a 35mm print would cost thousands of dollars in film stock and chemicals and require tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, as well as trained operators -- has anyone ever actually encountered a 35mm dupe?) to the easiest-to-duplicate media format in the world -- digital bits. It's one thing for inferior, camcorder pirated copies to appear on the market, but it would be quite another thing entirely if someone were to intercept the data stream, decode it, and downconvert the image to DVD quality and start pressing discs or spread it around the net.

Remember those guys who stole the "Phantom Menace" print? They baled it into trashbags and ran off with it, then realized that the film was worthless to them and dumped it. Might have been a different story if they had stolen a set of DVD-ROMs instead!

Personally, I think that the industry should stick with film for initial releases, and only permit digital distribution after the movie is out on DVD. Once the DVD is out, any potential piracy is going to come from the DVD source anyhow. Also, by that time, most of the film prints will have been worn out or destroyed anyway. (except for the prints in the capable hands of the participants of this fine forum, of course. :-) Digital distribution would be wonderful for second run and repertory theatres, which currently often have to make do with damaged or faded prints of more obscure movies, if they can get them at all.

 |  IP: Logged

Too bad that with ALL of the current 'godsend save-us-all-from-evil-FILM' digital cinema systems out there, those very theatres wouldn't have a chance in hell of affording the proper equipment to show the newfangled 'digital videos' (let's call them what they really are)...

Vive la Resistance!
Vive le FILM!

First it is wrong (despite the fact that the studios never get a single dollar from me anyway since I work in theaters). Second the quality as I said before, sucks! If I had a videotape sent to me from the studio with a rank cintel transfer in letterbox and Hi-Fi stereo sound, I still probabaly wouldn't watch it. Movies were made to be viewed on FILM and in a theater. The "home experience" just doesn't cut it, I don't care how many tens of thousands were spent on the video system, I've never seen one that impressed me.

Vive la Resistance!
Vive le FILM!
Bring back 70mm!!!

 |  IP: Logged