my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Fairly lame "60 Minutes" piece on movie piracy last night (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Fairly lame "60 Minutes" piece on movie piracy last night David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-02-2009 09:18 AM                        The focus of the story was camcording in theaters. They even showed what CAP code looks like and explained BitTorrent. No mention of DVD screeners. They got Steven Soderberg (sp?) to go on camera talking about piracy. Here's a "review" and alternate take on the 60 Minutes piece by someone named "gerry" at rec.arts.movies.current-films (link) ================================== For proof that the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes is on its last legs, exhibit one would be the segment on movie piracy that Lesley Stahl presented this Sunday. Somehow, the 60 Minutes crew and police found a place in Los Angeles that still makes bootleg copies of DVDs, if this clip was not file footage recorded a year ago. Nowhere in this story about the movie piracy problem was there any mention of the series of big budget bombs Hollywood is releasing these days, movies like Amelia, Land of the Lost, Surrogates (a good movie but weak box office) and Confessions of A Shopaholic. Instead, you had a talking head link the homicidal Mexican drug gang Zetas to selling bootleg DVDs. And there was one Hispanic shown, a poor guy caught videotaping a movie in a theater going to criminal court with his wife and small child. What's the matter, the movie theater police scared of arresting Zeta gang members because they have automatic weapons? Stahl's hero in this story is Sarkozy's French government, which is threatening to cut the Internet service of repeat down loaders of bootleg movies. The same French government that previously targeted Hollywood movies for threatening French culture, and tried to limit the showing of non-French made movies in France. Nowhere in this segment did Stahl mention how there has been a sharp drop in DVD movie sales, in part caused by the economy, in part caused by the proliferation of Red Box kiosks, pay per view cable movies and NetFlix rentals. Hollywood studios now make most of their money from DVD sales and, to a lesser extent, the overseas box office. The recession hurts US DVD sales and bad movies like Amelia don't travel well to foreign markets. But that DVD sales decline is why Hollywood studios are firing many of their top executives to save salary costs by reducing headcount. Movie piracy has nothing to do with Hollywood's current troubles. Bad movies are the real problem, movies no one wants to watch. Taken was a big box office hit even though this movie was out on DVD overseas months before its USA release thanks to a delay in Taken finally getting a PG-13 rating after editing out some violence. The 60 Minutes story ignored the real change going on, that the most popular products from Hollywood are US TV series like Smallville, Supernatural and Lost. Viewers in countries like Australia want to see the current US TV series episodes now, not wait a year for their release overseas. And viewers in the USA, who miss a TV series episode broadcast or who now have bad TV reception on some ATSC channels and don't have cable, download these TV series' episodes from the Internet, commercials edited out. That is a big change from just three years ago. A change 60 Minutes totally ignored. Along with who knows what else. ===================================== Speaking of "Amelia", the display ad in the weekend newspaper here says it's "Now Playing!" at the Regal Springfield Quad. That theater has been closed for like 8 years.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-02-2009 10:00 AM                        Jack Valenti lives! I also like the fact that when 60min did touch on the one place where DVD piracy REALLY counts -- insider piracy with material stolen that is so good ACTUAL DVDs can be produced that are undetectable counterfits that can be rented and sold and even slipped into Red Boxes -- the WOLVERINE debacle, it was barely mentioned and no questions were asked about how is THAT kind of piracy handled by law enforecment agencies. Do they have footage of them storming into post-production facilities with their door batteries and bullet proof vests and bazzokas drawn? What a piece of sensational trash. Just a regurgitation of the MPAA party line that we have been hearing over the last 20 years. So with this great "new" information about the rising threat of terrorist pirates (which is the way the story opened -- that shot the raid and Stahl voicing over "The LA Police are going after pirates, I thought the piece was going to be about the pirates that are attacking ships on the high seas), if DVD piracy is on a "dramatic" rise (necessitating a 60min news piece on it) so how come the MPAA nerd is sitting there STILL parroting the same loss number they've been using for the last 10 years -- 6 BILLION dollars? How come 60min didn't ask how was that figure calculated? Now THAT would be news worthy. Piracy has gone up so substantially that we need another news story on it, but the loss figure remains the same? And yes, it's all those theatre's fault for not putting Jose and his family in shackles from the get-go. The shot of the projection booth, although Stahl didn't claim the projectionist was somehow complicit in the piracy, an idea has been strongly suggested in the past, that shot, at least in my mind, reinforced that notion so much so that I immediately thought, "Ah here it comes...she's going to say how theatre projectionists and personnel are sometimes involved with the piracy." They didn't overtly make that claim, but the shot still established it. Me thinks this kind of sorry ass, halfwitted, regurgitation would have been kicked to the ground if Don Hewitt were still around. Unfortunately Jack Valenti still lives, but apparantly Don Hewitt does not.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-02-2009 10:09 AM                        Isn't there a rule about redundant thread headings  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-02-2009 11:19 AM                        quote: For proof that the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes is on its last legs, As right-on as the reviewer might be, he loses all credibility with this first sentence. 60 Minutes is hardly on its last legs; it consistently finishes in the top 10 in ratings for the week and almost always wins its time slot. It's not going anywhere and I'd bet it will be on the air as long as CBS exists.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-02-2009 12:54 PM                     Mike: Not that I am criticizing 60 Minutes, haven't seen it in five years, but I hardly think viewership ratings relate to quality, what with "Twilight" and "Couples' Retreat" box-office numbers figuring in. I agree that the program, as described to me here, is rather lacking in terms of actual information on the piracy taking place today, and generates its dramatic elements with racial and terrorist overtones. But again, we are dealing with an uneducated public. I don't know how many of you here have worked in newsrooms, print, television, or otherwise, but the information is always dumbed down at the editing level. Don't blame the journalists, blame the editor whose policy is that 95% of the program should be intelligible to those who have completed a 9th grade education.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-02-2009 01:06 PM                        And that is a good point -- and knowing what propelled 60 Minutes to the place of stellar promenance in the CBS News glaxcy has been Don Hewitt's instinct to avoid dumbing down the information. Make it concise and understandable, but never cut corners that will emasculate the content. Whoever they got to product/edit this piece must be just cutting his or her journalistic chops because this certainly wasn't worthy of some of the exceptional work 60 Minutes has done in the past. It was like an infomercial for the MPAA line of bs.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-02-2009 01:11 PM                     Frank, while, again I can't comment one way or the other on Don Hewitt, as I don't know if he was still active in the show the last I watched it, I think you can present a show that is 95% understandable to a viewer without "emasculating" it. So you are purporting me to have said one thing, when I actually said something completely different. There are still 5% in there to enlighten the educated people too.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-02-2009 02:30 PM                        quote: I hardly think viewership ratings relate to quality, Well, of course not....if they did, most network TV shows wouldn't ever see the airwaves!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-02-2009 03:14 PM                  quote: Frank Angel Jack Valenti lives! How true! That Asswipe MF SOB Lame Jerk Valenti returns from the grave! And is re-incarnated not as a donkey, but as the current head asses of the MPAA! That 60 Minutes segment was the BIGGEST POS that I have ever seen on that lame show. I also found it super-interesting that CBS and Paramount are both subs/owned by the same whore "MOTHER" company! Talk about biased/slanted/black journalism!!! Yours in Christ...  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-02-2009 03:44 PM                        60 Minutes still does some good stuff, but that particular story was as if they handed 15 minutes of airtime to the MPAA and said "Go for it!".  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 11-03-2009 10:39 PM                     MPAA = Motion Picture Asswhipes of America. I have two reasons: 1. Influencing an artist to edit their film to meet their narrow minded ratings systems. 2. Insinuating that a good and paying filmgoer like me is possibly a pirate every time I go to a cinema. The PG13 has done more harm to society than anything they've done. It opened to the door to younger audiences that are not ready for certain films. Heck, even the R rating doesn't mean much anymore. If a youngster wants to see an R rated film, it's not that hard to. I'm totally against any censorship, but don't mind a rating system that is reliable, fair, and easy for parents to understand. I'm also for a system that doesn't influence the art itself, but rather aids in helping a parent choose what films their kids may be ready for. rant off. AJG  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-03-2009 11:55 PM                        quote: I'm also for a system that doesn't influence the art itself, That won't be possible as long as movies are a for-profit venture. Most people under 15 base their moviegoing decisions on what the rating is. We could have a movie titled "The Worst Movie of All Time Ever Made, Guaranteed (Part 2)" and if it was rated R, a lot of the teenagers would still want to see it.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 11-04-2009 01:23 AM                     quote: Karl Borowski So you are purporting me to have said one thing, when I actually said something completely different. What? You: Don't get mad at the journalist; get mad at the editor for dumbing it down. Frank: Their good reputation is from them not dumbing anything down. You: You purported me to have said something I didn't say. Again, what?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-04-2009 12:59 PM                     quote: Aaron Garman I'm totally against any censorship, but don't mind a rating system that is reliable, fair, and easy for parents to understand. The problem with the MPAA is their ratings process is not fair, not consistent, heavily biased to giving far more slack to movies output by major studios (the majors fund the MPAA's operations) and a far more difficult time to movies output by independents (who don't fund the MPAA's operations). The MPAA and its ratings system is largely irrelevant anymore. So many people are watching movies on cable TV and a growing number are watching via the Internet. Both of those home-based outlets offer content far more daring than what is found in commercial movie theaters. The latest trend of many PG-13 movies being released with "unrated" cuts on home video underscores this irrelevance. Exposed breasts in a feature film? Big deal. Anyone can pull up hardcore pornography with a mouse click or a button push on a TV remote control. Obviously, the big battle line is between movies that are deemed pornographic and those that are merely movies for adults only. The MPAA is too cowardly to draw the physical distinction that separates pornography from movies with simulated sex and violence. Doing so would give too much of an advantage to independent film producers who are more likely to come up with daring, different material. Big Hollywood studios only know how to play it safe. So they need to have some way of keeping the indy crowd under their thumbs. The MPAA knows their organization is largely irrelevant as well. I think the group's recent campaigns about movie piracy is little more than a public relations campaign for the MPAA itself. I don't think the MPAA really cares at all about piracy. I don't think the Hollywood studios do either. If they did the first piracy vector they would smash is those freaking DVD screener discs. How else do they think the movie is getting onto the Internet BEFORE the movie gets into theaters!? Duh!  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 11-04-2009 02:59 PM                     Can't agree more Bobby. AJG  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.