Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Hollywood Pushes for SOPA, Earns Record Profits"
- Thread starter 0dev
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's up to each individual. $$$$
Yes. See above.
None of my money goes to them, don't worry. I'm doing my bit
If Hollywood was serious about combating piracy, they'd get rid of all the FBI Warning (in multiple languages) & unskippable trailers (the 30 minutes worth at the beginning) of each DVD/Blu-Ray.
That's why I burn my own copies, even of stuff I paid for.
That's why I burn my own copies, even of stuff I paid for.
"Hollywood Pushes for SOPA, Earns Record Profits"
Not sure how or why those two statements are related.
I'm no fan of SOPA, but the fact that Hollywood has earned record profits has nothing to do with the act.
The last time I went to the movie theater with my family, it cost an even $50.00 for the three of us for tickets and concessions. That was for a matinee. I could buy two Blu-Rays for that. That is why people don't go to the movies anymore.
Not sure how or why those two statements are related.
I'm no fan of SOPA, but the fact that Hollywood has earned record profits has nothing to do with the act.
The last time I went to the movie theater with my family, it cost an even $50.00 for the three of us for tickets and concessions. That was for a matinee. I could buy two Blu-Rays for that. That is why people don't go to the movies anymore.
Well you can't cry about how your industry is dying when you're making stupid amounts of money which only increase every year. And did you see their salaries?
Well you can't cry about how your industry is dying when you're making stupid amounts of money which only increase every year. And did you see their salaries?
Their income and salaries aren't relevant. It's against the law to pirate movies. That's relevant.
My objection to SOPA is that it's a law designed to punish the medium rather than the behavior.
I'm not going to enter into an "is piracy wrong" debate, but either way, what the industry claims is that piracy significantly damages it to the point where they can barely make films anymore. That's the picture they're painting, especially as they're trying to get this bill passed. But the facts show that it's far from the truth.
Meanwhile, the picture you're painting is that because the industry is making money, they're wrong to oppose piracy. I'm simply saying that their income or losses shouldn't matter; they're supporting legislation that makes it against the law to pirate their products.
My problem with the bill is only that it reaches into banning distribution channels outright rather than focusing on illegal behavior.
Piracy helps sales. Here's some studies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4718249.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Again, I refuse to enter into a morality debate. I go by facts.
Our debate is not a moral one, it's a legal one.
You go by facts? Here's one: piracy is against the law regardless of how you feel about it.
Your links pertain to the music industry, not the film industry. But my statement still applies regardless.
Meh, the odds of getting caught are miniscule, and it's highly unlikely that a record company will be able to collect enough evidence to find anyone guilty of anything in court anyway (this applies to the UK, I don't know about the US).
Downloading an unauthorised copy of something is like jay-walking in terms of how bad it actually is.
I'd also like to point out that you're not depriving the artists of anything by pirating - they make all their money from live performances. You're "stealing" the phantom profits of the guys with the $60,000,000 salaries.
You're arguing morals here - are you sure you're against doing that?
You're arguing that it's okay to pirate because (you claim) only the fat cats who are rich lose out, but those are the ones in support of SOPA - not the artists.
I can't speak for the UK, but thousands of people here have been sued - successfully - by the RIAA for file sharing. Typical fines have been on the order of $3000-4000 per offender. Hardly on the scale of jaywalking.
If Hollywood was serious about combating piracy, they'd get rid of .... unskippable trailers (the 30 minutes worth at the beginning) of each DVD/Blu-Ray.
That's what it really is all about.
They have a sweetheart deal with those sponsors, and they have to either get you in the seats to see them, or at least watching an unaltered DVD/Blu-Ray.
Try getting the actual movie show time out of the movie theatres.
Last edited:
Yeah you managed to drag me into the realm of a moral debate anyway, I hope you're proud of yourself
Honestly I don't care about justifications anyway. I don't think of it as "this is bad thing but it's not as bad because of this". I think of it as, "these are the facts, as far as I'm concerned it's OK." Your moral compass evidently differs, which is why I find moral debates pointless. For the record, I rarely, if ever, pirate things anyway because I think mainstream entertainment is bullcrap.
As for the legality, that differs vastly by country. In the UK, only two people have ever successfully been sued for pirating anything, and that's only because they never turned up to the trial so lost by default. They were fined about £500.
Though a few scare mongers have tried to threaten people (usually the wrong people, too) with scary letters, said scare mongers are now all under investigation because what they did was unlawful. ACS:Law in perticular was also hacked, and as a result was fined for leaking customer data. They now cease to exist.
Of course, the MPA and RIA are now trying to get things censored here regardless, but those efforts are also futile because the censorship systems are incredibly easy to bypass.
Expect a long bright future of piracy ahead! Arrrrr!
...Oh, and don't forget about the growing number of independent artists who are skipping the obsolete record labels anyway because they can do better on their own thanks to the internet! I always support those!
I think the bigger issue at hand is the blatant short-sightedness of the collective entertainment industry. They have some odd notion that if they entirely stop piracy that those profits "lost" through piracy will magically end up in their coffers. It's as if they don't understand that most people who pirate content will not legally buy the content if forced to do so... they'll simply go without.
Yes... I always hated that. It's possible to have a nice implementation of 3d elements without hinging the movie on them.
It's probably a split. Look at itunes. That replaced some lost revenues.
Perhaps. It's hard to track exact purchasing metrics, but I would be more inclined to state that iTunes took sales from CD's and increased music sales to those who couldn't be bothered to buy CD's, which may not necessarily just be pirates. I for one never enjoyed purchasing CD's aside from the quality-- the fact that iTunes is/was cheaper in many regards undoubtedly increased sales from potential on the edge consumers. Some may or may not have been pirates; it's hard to say.
It's not just the people who were already doing that. An easy purchasing model also encourages new music purchasers to buy it. The thing about CDs is that they often have so much filler. Depending on the band, half the CD might be mediocre. What I don't think is really good is the way they've become dependent on Apple. Being dependent on a single company for such a large amount of distribution isn't good for the companies producing music. Obviously it's good for Apple though.
On top of that, the fines are more for piracy than they are for murder. Which doesn't really make sense either.
Sooo... It'd be better, financially, to kill the guys who run the RIAA than it would to face them in court?
Even though Corporate America is people, these's "people's" money is more important that the mere life of us poor grunts.
Sooo... It'd be better, financially, to kill the guys who run the RIAA than it would to face them in court?
That would be a logical conclusion to be drawn from the sentencing provisions, yes.