Fox Announces It Stopped Potter Pirates; But At What Cost?
from the and-how-successful-was-it-really? dept
Apparently, 20th Century Fox has proudly announced that they successfully stopped bootleggers from taping the latest Harry Potter movie -- even though that's apparently not true. As Dewayne Hendricks points out, he went online and found that you could, indeed, download a copy of the movie already. However, even if Fox was correct, you have to wonder at what cost. Harry Potter was the top grossing film this past weekend -- and it would have been even if the film was available online. It received pretty good reviews, and it's the type of movie franchise that's definitely going to bring out viewers. Meanwhile, crappy video camera copies of the movie aren't exactly the type of replacement that most movie goers are interested in. Yet, 20th Century Fox purchased and distributed thousands of night vision goggles, and promised rewards to anyone who caught someone taping the film. No one was caught. In other words, the whole procedure was a complete waste that cost a lot of money, didn't do anything to make the industry more money, didn't actually stop anyone from taping the movie or having the movie get online, and treated honest, paying theater goers as if they were criminals. And the movie studios are proud of this? Update: Well, it appears the original source may be completely wrong about this story. As a few people pointed out in the comments, Harry Potter is a Warner Brothers offering, not 20th Century Fox.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's very kind of Fox...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's very kind of Fox...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's very kind of Fox...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's very kind of Fox...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200511/msg00260.html
...or just simply click the first link at the top of the article that techdirt had written the story about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
How good could a movie possibly be, watched through a set of goggles -- especially if you don't normally use eye-wear... or even if you have to put these on top of your normal prescription eye-wear.
Yeah sure -- pay $40 for a night at the movies for you and your partner. And be required to wear a set of goggles that who knows how many other people have worn before you...
Something sounds incredibly wrong with this real life scenario.
Treating People Like Criminals Doesn't Help The Movie Going Experience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potter film theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potter film theft
My $0.02
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potter film theft
Hmm. I've gone over this before, but I'll try again, since this was apparently missed. I take offense to the idea I'm advocating any kind of stealing. I'm not. I never have.
(1) My "prejudice" is simple: my focus is on business and looking at the trends that are going to impact businesses going forward.
(2) One of those major trends is the digitization of content -- including for distribution. It's a trend that the industry seems to ignore, but there would be huge potential should they embrace. It's a situation where I'm trying to help them see an opportunity rather than a threat.
(3) I don't condone copyright infringement. I never have, and I never will. I don't know why you think I do. I've never used a file sharing program. I don't download music or movies or anything like that.
(4) I do believe that copyright infringement is very much illegal, even though it's not the same thing as theft (the Supreme Court agrees with me on this one). I don't condone any kind of copyright infringement -- in fact, I think the people who are engaged in it are taking a stupid risk, since it's illegal. However, comparing it to "shoplifting" is simply a bad analogy whose only purpose is to distort the debate.
(5) However, I think content businesses are missing a huge opportunity to embrace the more open use of content by ignoring copyright infringement. That's my "prejudice." I'm not "young" I'm not "hip." I don't download any music or movies or whatever. I just see it as a business opportunity for incumbent players.
(6) Even if I don't do these things, it's pretty clear that millions of people do. Trying to stop it is clearly holding back the tide. It's simply not working. At that point isn't better to look and see if there's a better solution? Historically, every new innovation has scared the daylights out of the content industry. Piano rolls. Radio. The VCR. Each one of these was fought vehemently -- and when finally embraced turned into huge money makers for the industry.
(7) The same can be true with file sharing. The trick is simply to recognize what the customers are telling them: they want free and unencumbered access to content. Since the content has no marginal cost to duplicate or distribute, your basic economics lessons should let you know that this trend is pretty much unstoppable.
(8) Once you recognize that, you can look for alternative business models. The content itself becomes *free promotional materials* for something else -- and the "something else" has a tremendous amount of potential to be a much bigger market than the "content" market of today (concerts, travel, sponsorships, access, there's a ton here if you think through it). In the case of movies, downloading movies is not impacting theater going. Movie going is a *social* experience. What's impacting theater going is that the experience is getting worse (worse content, expensive prices, bad/uncomfortable environment).
(9) In this specific case, can you show me where I advocate any kind of "stealing" of content? I don't, at all. I never advocate that at all. I'm just wondering how much it cost the studios to make this effort -- which had no real impact. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand? Is it really such a bad thing to look at the ROI on an effort and point out that it's negative? I don't think that's advocating stealing of anything. I think that's giving smart business advice. If you're a shop owner, and you spend more on an alarm system than you're likely to lose due to theft, shouldn't someone question your business acumen?
So, is that a good enough "examination" of my "prjeudice?" I've challenged my beliefs and this is what I've come up with. I'll stand up proudly and state that as many times as I can. I have no moral problems with my stance. Should I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright infringement does NOT equal theft
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030922/027245_F.shtml
There have been a number of opinion pieces showing up in newspapers across the country lately saying that the "sue your customers" strategy of the RIAA is the only sensible path to take. Here's a phenomenal response to one such article that makes some wonderful points on copyright infringement vs. theft and who's really being robbed. First, it says that (as we've asserted repeatedly here) not only is file sharing not theft, the Supreme Court has even said so. They clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and theft in a 1985 case, where they said, "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use." Making matters even worse for the RIAA, the article points out that the record labels represented by the RIAA often don't have the digital rights to the music from the artists they represent. However, they are collecting money (from fee-based services like iTunes and from these legal cases) and not giving it to the artists they represent. Thus, the argument goes, isn't it really the RIAA who is stealing (used properly) from musicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement does NOT equal theft
I am a board member of Amercian Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFTRA, and we represent recording artists. They are being paid by the RIAA and we make sure that they do. We agressively pursue them if they don't pay the artiusts. But if you all have your way, the business will dry up. A new business model is definetly being talked about. We recently negotiated a deal with the Ad Agencies that give AFTRA and SAG union coverage over all media forms, invented and not yet invented, for all commercials made in the future. Thsi will be sought for all other media that performers are involved in, Films, Television, Recordings, etc. This is just the beginning and those of you who want to pretend that your cause is just because you can get away with it are just kidding yourselves. What you do is not just hurting the RIAA, but artists around the world, most of them unknown. The few who are famous will do fine. The many who are not famous may have one or two CD's or DVD's to count on to make a buck.
You distance yourselves by saying RIAA or MPAA, but try some guy down the block who just got his first break and has a new CD coming out from say, Atlantic Records. Go to his house and ask him if it is alright for you to borrow his CD so you can make a copy, give it to all your friends, maybe put it online for others to "try out" and give it back to him in a couple of days. See what he says, but make sure he's not armed.
Think about what you do. You are defined by your acts and your standards of behavior. Life is no joke. Help us define a new business model , as Mike has stated. These artists are people just like you, so lay off the tough talk and get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright infringement does NOT equal thef
Some of us are paying attention. :)
The explanation about copywrite infringement not being comparable to stealing, is correct. You are not stealing the copywrite, but you are taking the product that is being offered for sale, so it is, imho, stealing. You deny the artist(s) their pennies they are entitled to for the sale of the merchandise.
This is bad logic. Let me explain why. It makes a few false assumptions: (1) That anything that is copied is a lost sale. (2) That anything that is copied does not lead to future sales (3) That anything that is copied does not open other ways to make money.
No one is "denied" any money. They simply haven't set up the proper business model to capture money from people. It's a *business* failure, not an illegal or unethical move on the part of the potential customer.
You distance yourselves by saying RIAA or MPAA, but try some guy down the block who just got his first break and has a new CD coming out from say, Atlantic Records. Go to his house and ask him if it is alright for you to borrow his CD so you can make a copy, give it to all your friends, maybe put it online for others to "try out" and give it back to him in a couple of days. See what he says, but make sure he's not armed.
Hello Mr. Strawman. Let's pick apart this example. How did the guy down the block get onto Atlantic Records? These days, it's probably because he already had a decent following online via MySpace or locally in clubs. How do you get that initial following? By getting more people to listen and enjoy your music.
So, let's take your strawman and make a different example. Go to the same guy down the block who has a new CD coming out from Atlantic Records and point out that his contract with Atlantic has a huge advance that will take forever to repay from the tiny fraction of royalties he gets from CDs. However, you don't have to repay an advance for money made from other channels. In fact, you get a decent cut of any concert take, merchandise take or any other business model you come up with.
So, then, I say "can I have your CD, promote the hell out of the MP3s online, drive people to your website and your concerts? How about you also set up additional lines of business? What about, for example, setting up a "premium fan club" where people pay $15/year and get early access to concert tickets or access to private concerts? Maybe even offer a contest for a free concert in someone's backyard? You'd get plenty of people paying that $15, and rather than only getting pennies from a CD, you'd get most of that. Or, how about some other business models? The String Cheese Incident has set up a travel agency to help fans travel to its concerts. It gets a cut from that *and* makes more money on concert tickets. If we promote your band enough with free music, you can make so much more money that way."
In that case, I don't think I'd care much if he were armed, other than the big hug I'd likely get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If you know where to look (which is any street in the West End of London or the various torrent sites) you can get high quality copies before movies are released in the UK.
So please argue about the morals or legality of copying movies etc. but not about the poor quality because it's just not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hehe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]