60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy
from the no-sense-of-history dept
31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.No such luck.
CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.
The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don't show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies -- which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is "making its money" off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the "journalists" at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.
A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA's line before, so it's no surprise that he does so again. He claims that "piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office." Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don't want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don't know what they're talking about.
Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry's own numbers:
2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That's the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)
The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through "airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones." Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?
And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and "popcorn" represents an infinitesimal part of the market...). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:
"Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States."Except, as we noted above, he's off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of "fact" that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show's reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn't it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton's bogus number? Apparently not.
Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can't be important here, can it?
Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It's just that Sodergbergh says.
And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn't talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn't talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn't talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA's claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn't even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.
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
Filed Under: 60 minutes, copyright, leslie stahl, movies, piracy, rick cotton, steven soderbergh
Companies: cbs, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The MSM continues to be become irrelevant. Not only do most people not watch the news shows of the old "big 3 networks", I doubt few people under 30 have _ever_ watched them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kids these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yea, I'm 25 - not 70. Give it a chance, you might like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
welcome to why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: welcome to why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: welcome to why
He's like the crazy old guy living down the street who hates everything. If he had a weekly web series, I'd subscribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: welcome to why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
Yeah, that's always the first thing I think of when the industry says that they'll only go after uploaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;
Universal City Studios LLLP;
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; and
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Now i could be wrong but I don't see Columbia Pictures in that list, my understanding is that this in NOT authorised distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video Shows that MPAA itself contributing to Piracy
Also - cones? No. Cylinders. Right rectangular cylinders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that show still on?
"60 Minutes," which may still tell some valuable stories, has fallen into the yellow journalism trap that so many other "news" sources have fallen into just to gain viewer attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that show still on?
"Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear reactors rose sharply (vs. the national trend) in the past two decades, according to a recent study.
The greatest mortality increases occurred near the oldest nuclear plants, while declines were observed near plants that closed permanently in the 1980s and 1990s. The study was published in the most recent issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care."
"Study authors were epidemiologist Joseph Mangano MPH MBA, Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project and toxicologist Janette Sherman MD of the Environmental Institute at Western Michigan University. They analyzed leukemia deaths in children age 0-19 in the 67 counties near 51 nuclear power plants starting 1957-1981 (the same counties in the NCI study). About 25 million people live in these 67 counties, and the 51 plants represent nearly half of the U.S. total)."
Citation: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13825
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that show still on?
As for leukemia deaths near nuclear power plants, the data missing is what leukemia deaths are near coal powered power plants, gas powered power plants, and oil powered power plants, as well as leukemia rates in areas away from any power plant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that show still on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that show still on?
Moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that show still on?
Then compare the mining related deaths and injuries for both coal and uranium.
Then factor in the ton(nes) of CO2 released by hydrocarbon fuled plants.
Radiation is a concern - invisible, etc.
On balance, I prefer radiation to the alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that show still on?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Strange-Traditional-Power-Plants-Emit-More-Radiation-Than- Nuclear-Ones-73995.shtml
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090714/west-virginia-redefines-dirty-ener gy-alternative
True or not, focusing on nuclear power plants without analyzing other plants is like analyzing deaths from flying. Flying looks incredibly dangerous until you compare flying to virtually everything else, then you suddenly realize flying is safer than walking down the stairs in your house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, guess those copyright extensions worked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, guess those copyright extensions worked!
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, guess those copyright extensions worked!
Basically, despite any copyright extensions, the market's ABILITY to copy, share, and distribute content has increased by leaps and bounds over the time period considered.
It is in this era of increased copying that the industry has produced increasing numbers of films. Same for music industry.
While no causation is proved by my argument or yours, at least mine deals with the real world observation that content production has increased during an era of increased copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, guess those copyright extensions worked!
What likely has a bigger effect on movies is the public's appetite for movies, both in the theater and, more importantly, on DVD and on cable/satellite. Combine that appetite with the ability to make and distribute movies faster and more cheaply than ever, and you get an impetus for making lots of movies regardless of whether the movies earn a dime in the theater.
The copying and sharing is an aspect of the technologies that make movies cheaper to make. Whether that also increases the desire for more movies, I have no evidence, though there are some studies that suggest that might be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incredulous
What a pile of crap, I wonder if Hewitt would have ever allowed such a load of pure shit to air.
Gee, wikki CBS and see their film industry connections, including their new feature film venture, CBS films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incredulous
They smuggle cameras in diaper bags! Diaper bags! Do you know what that would happen if even a little of that camera touches a baby?
It sickens me just to think about it.
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First and foremost, how many of those "releases" made it more than a handful of screens? How many "hollywood" movies were released, and how many low budget fillers hit a limited number of screens for a few days run? Some stuff is running only a single day or weekend now.
Second, the numbers tell the real truth: The inflation adjusted "real dollar" movie sales, if the industry was flat, should be about 10.9 to 11 billion. instead, it has been flat compared to previous years, which means it is losing income at the rate of inflation. Remember, the costs to make the movies have gone up at least by inflation, but sales have not.
Please don't go on a rant about "expecting to get paid" or "have a right to get paid". It's straight up about comparing 2004 dollars to 2009 dollars. Adjusted, the movie business is behind about 15% or so.
We won't even get into the adjustments made for worldwide sales, considering that the US dollar has dropped in value against almost every other currency.
Also, the numbers don't seem to indicate what is considered a release. That would be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that there was a bit of an economic adjustment over the past year and change, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So yes, I realize there has been a big adjustment in the last year, and remarkably, it's in there already. Without it, the number might be more like 20%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, what's the buggy whip industry doing these days? Adjusted for de/in/deflation, of course.
Free markets let industries, as well as individuals, die their natural deaths. The 'record distribution' industry is a frakin' zombie that refuses to die and eats the brains of the living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea how much buggy whips cost 100 years ago, but I would bet they were much less than $20.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, at the time I'm sure. But bully that there is still a striving Buggy Whip industry.
What would worry me is if there were a BWIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The surfeit of Hollywood cash actually get in the way. That particular one was slated to be remade with a gigantic budget, but was thrown out there as a panic move.
Guess which was the 'wiser' decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, but we are talking about copyright here? That thing about needing it as an incentive to create new works? Well, apparently new works are being created and the incentive is not being taken away by the recent file sharing.
Now, an industry that has a business model that is not making as much money as it used to? That is simply a dying business model. Propping this up under the guise of trying to give artists incentive to create new work does not make sense. Call it what it is - some parts of the entertainment industry (not all of it, mind you) wants a bail-out because the world changed and they cannot make the kinds of money they used to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might have a good point there, though more info than that is still needed to prove it. One thing the numbers DO show, is that the average gross per movie has definitely shrunk. The number of movies produced has doubled, whereas the revenue has stayed about the same. We don't know what the distribution of that revenue is, though, so the "average" doesn't say too much.
To gain more insight about it we also need to know the statistics of the average (and the distribution) of the investment made per movie. You assume here that the cost has stayed the same, adjusted by inflation, thus indicating a "loss", but the fact is that we don't really know how valid this assumption is. It's entirely plausible that the investment has shrunk at the inflation rate, thus negating any "income loss" related to it.
Even if there HAS been a relative loss, it is still far for conclusive that it is due to filesharing without controlling for other factors. With the experience of going to the cinema getting more annoying for several reasons (including piracy hysteria) and the experience of watching movies at home becoming ever better (home theaters and HD), it's hard to know how much of any revenue "loss" has been due to illegal channels instead of shifts in the market caused by legal phenomena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is true. However, considering some of the conclusions drawn here on Techdirt on various subjects with way less than complete data, I would say that they are probably into something.
the experience of watching movies at home becoming ever better
It's even better when you download a ripped copy of the dvd from someone and don't have to pay - which is the point of the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps. Doesn't change the fact that both Soderbergh and Cotton lied about how many movies were being made and released. They didn't ask how many blockbusters there were. And the fact that more movies (by a huge amount) are getting made certainly shows that the "incentive" to make movies hasn't gone away, as implied by both.
Second, the numbers tell the real truth: The inflation adjusted "real dollar" movie sales, if the industry was flat, should be about 10.9 to 11 billion.
Says who? You do realize that inflation is not an across the board thing that applies to all industries equally, don't you?
Remember, the costs to make the movies have gone up at least by inflation, but sales have not.
Actually, that's not true at all. It's significantly cheaper to make, distribute and promote a movie today than it was just a few years ago.
Please don't go on a rant about "expecting to get paid" or "have a right to get paid". It's straight up about comparing 2004 dollars to 2009 dollars. Adjusted, the movie business is behind about 15% or so.
And, as you well know, you don't compare a single industry to across the board inflation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Doesn't change the fact that both Soderbergh and Cotton lied about how many movies were being made and released.
Taken out of context, who knows? Were they talking about Hollywood studio releases? Were they talking about Hollywood studio movies? There are probably tens of thousands of movies "released" every year, most of them into the vacuum of nothingness.
Art in it's many guises isn't only done on the basis of "incentive", but often as a hobby or as something people feel the need to do. The releasing companies in the last few years have taken on more and more independant and low budget films and given then short, regional (or even local) runs to see if there is any interest in them. This often leads to the movie being sold "up the chain" to a major studio, maybe redone or touched up, and released nationwide. Again, without knowing all the numbers, your comments could be as much of a "lie" as Soderbergh or Cotton.
You do realize that inflation is not an across the board thing that applies to all industries equally, don't you?
Yawn. Time for another twisted economics lesson from Mike.
Inflation doesn't apply anywhere equally. But in making a movie, you touch everything from technology, to people, to gas, to food, props, raw materials (to build sets), transport, leasing, and all sorts of other things. In fact, as a business, it touches almost every one of the major categories under which inflation is generally figured.
Basically, income is flat, but inflation has moved 15+% in the same amount of time. Does it EXACTLY mean 15% for the movie business? Nope? Could mean 10%, could mean 20%. It is just an indicator, like any of the other indicators you look at. Again, it only has to apply to the expense side, and not the income side, and the gap is still there.
Sorry, but this is a very basic economic concept. I am sure you can Masnick Effect it into being unimportant, but more than a few people in this thread already caught on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK, I have to ask:
Who cares if they're "Hollywood" or not? What constitutes "Hollywood"? Does it really matter if a movie is produced by a major studio if it's successful?
Let's put it another way: Does Paranormal Activity (independently made but distributed by a studio) count as a "Hollywood" movie or not? If so, would it still count if it hadn't gained traction after its initial 12 screen run? Does the fact that it expanded to 2,500+ screens make a difference to it's "Hollywood" qualifications? What about Moon, produced in a similar way but only distributed to 252 screens? Is that more or less "Hollywood"?
As for "released into the vacuum of nothingness", there are numerous major studio releases that you can say that about. Remember 2008's major studio production "The Hottie And The Nottie" (released to only 111 screens, made less than $28,000)? I don't think there's any independent production that did quite that badly in the same year...
If Hollywood studios prefer to ignore independent successes to further their own agenda, that doesn't mean that the rest of us should ignore them. Either Soderbergh et al were lying or they were ignoring a large part of the film community - especailly annoying given the way Soderbergh tried to buck the system with Bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would have to ask the guys that Mike says are lying.
As for the released you mention, you hit another potential source of issue: Many movies are produced every year by mainstream (and not so mainstream) companies that are "direct to DVD" releases, that never get anywhere near a theater. If some of those actually got short or limited runs (Like "hottie"), perhaps to fill a contract, did that make more total releases?
Do total releases include direct to DVD productions? Maybe that is the number, and not just stuff that made it to the screen.
It's very easy to call people liars (as Mike seems to have done here) without actually asking them what they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to claim that is the same as Mike saying these folks lied, okay fine.
But see how easy it is to challenge a statement someone makes that doesn't seem to be consistent with the facts?
Were any of these statements placed in context? Did these movie folks get the opportunity (and seriously, if they really are on top of their stuff like you imply, it would be an opportunity) to address these issues more fully? No they were not.
60 minutes didn't do them any favors. We are denied a REAL story, and these guys made themselves legitimate targets for those of us that were not buying their line in the first place.
That's the point. Not that they lied, but that you CAN'T possibly tell if they did or didn't.... As in fact your defense shows, we don't know hardly what any of their presented "facts" and "figures" really mean.... Because nobody actually asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So for Mike to jump all over 60 minutes for a report that may not include the "facts" (opinions) they he supports is a little bit silly too. The "pro-sharing" "FREE!" types are forever fronting silly numbers as well. It's the meaningless battle of studies that are actually polls, or polls that only include people who are favorable to a point of view. Neither side is lying, just working hard to be able to ignore reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's very easy to accuse people of calling people liars (as you seem to have done here) without actually asking them what they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well duh, do the math. You have 1000 releases over a year. 365 days a year. My local cinema...one has 4 screens, one has 2. Ok, so we'll say 4 screens, so that gives you an average of...just under 11 days per movie. So if you wanna have a big blockbuster there for 3 weeks or more (which they do fairly often), then you've got to cut something back. The more movies that are being made, the shorter time they can be in theaters. Basic physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In you calculations have you subtracted the fact that there is close to a 10% unemployment? Of those that are employed, a large number of people didnt get raises or, are making about half of what they used to. Add into that the increased costs of everything else. Most people are trying to survive. I know I am, and spending $40 on a movie and popcorn are at the bottom of my list.
So, the industry profits staying somewhat steady is amazing in itself. We all should really shed a few tears for thier grief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An industry losing income proves nothing by itself (a reason why it is losing the money needs established by another means). This idiocy is one of the prime problems with the arguments made by the MPAA. They assume that increasing profit should continue at established rates... that making the same amount of money this year as last year means someone has stolen your profits! This is asinine logical fallacy to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahh, but that's kind of the point of your post - you're expecting that the industries should be getting this extra 15% or whatever inflation is.
Over the years shown, there have been more and varied other forms of entertainment come about (e.g. console gaming) that are going to be taking money that might once have been spent on "going to the movies".
You simply can not look at these figures in isolation from everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes never had any credibility
What's the next newsflash - that Rush Limbaugh said something that's not true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 60 Minutes never had any credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 60 Minutes never had any credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst was when they trotted out the French "3 Strikes" law and implied that the U.S. wasn't doing its part by not enacting similar legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean "like the Thirteenth Floor?" Or "like Tron?" Or "like Alice in Wonderland?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should check their comments area
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 minutes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From one of the comments on CBSnews.com
"In fact, the internet is probably more important to the long term future of all Humanity than any of the above groups and the vile little cretins who want to twist it to their perverted and banal ends for thirty pieces of silver."
I had not thought of the internet that way before .... weird when you have a moment of enlightenment, it made me smile ... a Big Ole GRIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes is in FAIL Mode
In support of 60M and the movie industry (since I, as a part time journalist in the past and do present both sides) I would like to present these points:
The theater bag search was only at an exclusive premier, not a regular showing.
60 Minutes is in competition with entertainment programming and needs to catch the viewers attention. For every "OMFG Rome is burning" segment like this they do put together several real and important reports.
There is movie pirating happening and the industry does lose money from it. However, the numbers the MPAA comes up with are ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I would like to see a 60M piece on how the movie industry has special accounting rules that allow it to pay almost no taxes.
Anyone that takes the time to download a bit torrent movie and burn a DVD, which can take hours and hours, either has no money and would not buy the movie any way or has no life and is a techno-weenie just doing it because they think it's fun - and would not buy the movie any way. If I want to see a movie I go to the theater, rent it from Block Buster, pay the $20 for the DVD, or wait for it to show on cable. I waste my time by pretending to be an authority on stuff I know almost nothing about by writing up rants here at Techdirt.
I like Andy Rooney best, if he presents nonsense he makes sure you know it's nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 60 Minutes is in FAIL Mode
With the advent of streaming players and personal laptops, burning movies to DVD is hardly the preferred method of consumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WWJD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I seem to remember a bible story about Jesus copying and sharing some fish and bread. That seems kind of similar to file sharing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about the cost to see a movie?
I have a 100' screen in a dedicated theater room at home, with stadium seating. I can seat 7.
A $20-$30 BluRay movie can be watched un-limited times, something the toddler set REALLY enjoys.
They wonder why fewer people go to the movies...look at the ticket and food prices.
I seldom go to movies at theaters and when I do I'm hit by the high cost and quickly vow not to return.
I'd be willing to pay $40 for a first run movie on any HD format, but can I? So if I want the movie before waiting 6-8 months for the BD/DVD release, what are my options?
The industry is failing to meet my needs, and many others like me. We have money but that doesn't mean we want to be raped to see a movie or wait 6-8 months. The torrents sure seem more attractive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
The original "Transformers" movie was in movie theaters July 2, 2007. The movie was released October 16, 2007, when some theaters were still playing the movie. At the time, I believe it was the fastest release on DVD from time of movie release of any movie.
However, that time frame appears to be much more typical of newer movies. The theory is that more people will buy if the release is closer to the appearance in theaters because it will be fresh in people's minds. I wonder whether movie theaters might one day start selling copies of the DVD (at a huge mark up, I would bet) at the showing of the movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what about the cost to see a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truly strange
So I would approach the dollars numbers that MPAA puts out with caution. It is in their interest to show the most bloated number possible.
As for the 60 Minutes story - they promised it to be about the mob profiting out of it and yet there was nothing in the story about mobsters. Overall, quite a weak and sorry report. It is possible that they were forced to do the story and presented it in such a way as to not have any credibility, i.e. sabotaging it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truly strange
Considering that the preceding story on the Yakuza was infinitely better I might have to agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truly strange
Makes me ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billboard's take on the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Billboard's take on the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Billboard's take on the story
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/10/23/01
The Billboard problem was amply illustrated there. Weirdly, the Billboard Guy is way more defensive than the RIAA Guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Billboard's take on the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Billboard's take on the story
I mean, I appreciate their honesty about the program, but the author seems to be taking a lot of pride in that fact.
Last night was probably the first time many Americans received such detailed information on digital piracy. And they got a very sympathetic portrayal in which no opposing opinions were presented.
I get a knot in my stomach reading those two sentences together, proud is not the emotion I would want to portray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6bn loss?
Claiming that you would have seen a 60%+ increase in revenue if it wasn't for those pesky kids seems like something else a "journalist" should have checked.
(ignoring inflation effects, I haven't looked into whether the numbers are in todays prices or not)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6bn loss?
Using the numbers Mike's found in 2004 takings were 9.3bn for 567 movies
Therefore, for 1037 movies in 2008 takings should be 9.3 * 1037/567 = 17.0bn, compared to actual of 9.7bn.
Obviously there's been a loss of 17.0 - 9.7 = 7.3bn from somewhere. Must be those thieves online!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might want to start by hating whatever school system it was that left you with such a terrible inability to write clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me, how SHOULD i feel about an industry with as much Washington lobbying power as Hollywood does pushing for legislation to throw citizens off the WWW without so much as a hearing? The again, the web is just a luxury nowadays, right? It's not like anyone depends on it for their livelihood....
Once that's done maybe we can tackle the drug problem by throwing people off all phone networks for calling their dealer for a gram of coke.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lol
Although that last word shouldn't be "amen" but rather "baaaah!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes no diff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, please...
Except they claim to be "news" and "journalists". It's almost as funny as when Fox "News" claims the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 minutes of agitprop
Net neutrality is currently being debated, and here they come with a report linking movie piracy with BitTorrent (which only works well if a large number of people already have the file in question -- useless for centralized distribution). Followed up with the claim that "speed bumps" have to be put in place FOR EVERYBODY.
This is equivalent to the claim that terrorists are using the postal service and concealing their communications in an envelope, so we have to ban sealed mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 60 minutes of agitprop
Other forms of P2P don't, because they are based around searching collections of other users' files. Because of the secure hashing that torrents use, as well as the centralized distribution of .torrent files, torrents are great for distributing files that most people don't have. TV shows are released over torrents - clearly large numbers of people don't have bit-identical copies of tv shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 60 minutes of agitprop
from wikipedia:
"Average BitTorrent download speed is limited by the combined average upload speed of "peers" (other nodes with partial copies which are also downloading) and "seeds" (complete copies that are only uploading)."
This is probably semantics. -- but as far as a tool for pirates is concerned, -- also from wikipedia :
"BitTorrent does not offer its users anonymity. It is possible to obtain the IP addresses of all current, and possibly previous, participants in a swarm from the tracker. This may expose users with insecure systems to attacks.[9] It may also expose users to the risk of being sued, if they are distributing files without permission from the copyright holder(s)."
So why was Stahl attacking BitTorrent specifically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 60 minutes of agitprop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pleasing their corporate masters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep.
Anyway, I love Stephen Soderbergh. In fact, he's one of only a few directors who I would refuse to pirate, instead insisting that I give him his money's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If copyright duration was shortened to zero, there would be no illegal downloading.
I think I've solved the problem. In order to stop the illegal filesharing, we remove copyright. Genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never studied cause and effect, did you?
What you are saying is that faster internet, better computers, more capable file trading sites, cheaper connectivity... all those things have absolutely nothing to do with it?
Tell Mike. He'll want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great logic!
If endangered animals were hunted into extinction, there would be no more illegal poaching.
I think I've just solved the problem. In order to stop poaching, we hunt the animals into extinction. Genius.
If human lives were shortened to zero, there would be no murder.
I think I've just solved the problem. In order to stop murder, we need to shorten human lives to zero. Genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
"Masnic Effect" as a verb is great.
Remember 2008's major studio production "The Hottie And The Nottie" (released to only 111 screens, made less than $28,000)? I don't think there's any independent production that did quite that badly in the same year...
Are you really saying that you don't think there was any independent film in 2008 that made less money than $28,000 bucks? Because if you are, that's incredibly and laughably ignorant. Or did you mean theatrical? And If you meant theatrical, did you mean wide or limited release? Or did you mean straight to DVD? Or did you mean gross or net? Are you beginning to see why these distinctions matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a life you losers and quit clogging up my Internets with your useless movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
video games
Personally, I wouldn't go to a movie theater any more. You can have a better experience in a home theater for less money. I'm actually so used to LCD screens and digital projectors that a wobbling and flickering film projection looks bad in comparison (even if the colors etc. are technically better).
Convenience always wins, even if the image/sound quality is worse. C-cassettes in Walkmans and car players became more common than vinyl records, MP3s overtook CDs, VHS video became a bigger market than movie tickets etc. etc. Illegal movie downloads are much more convenient than trying find what you want in a theater or video store. The solution is to make a legal online store that is as good as the illegal sites, i.e. has as large a selection at high quality and download speeds, with no restrictions on what devices you can play the files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: video games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60%+ posts by Anonymous coward...
The the movies, yes! How many times, he thinks one would watch "The Hottie And The Nottie"? I bet, most people won't care even if someone is buying their tickets. In these large number of movies being made these days, most of them are such crap that no one cares if they haven't seen it. You can still find young people who would care about 40s film-noir, but you really think that 60 years from now 'young people' would watch Hottie and Nottie.
This inflation/oil price hike all this is recent turmoil, but where were big6 not whining? They stopped caring about making movies years ago, not they are only concerned in money by bullying. And the general rant by RIAA/MPAA is just not the same as those by independent movies/artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WE can't account for the information unless we have detailed budgets for the films shown in those years. The MPAA will never release those because ti would invalidate their tax payments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes? Meh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Matrix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes Pirate DVD Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America's hour of journalistic incompetence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That says it all about 60 minutes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change the name of news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons
Although it’s obvious that the PER MOVIE gross is dropping across Mike’s period, why not look at reasons WHY. Having been around movies for, oh, fifty years or so, I can propose some answers to that (in no particular order), some of which have shown up in subsequent comments.
First, quality. Let’s be honest – if all of the movies were of equal average quality, then there should be at least some increase in income. People will go to see good movies.
Second, sequels. It’s a rare thing when a sequel is as good as its predecessor. So, this connects to quality and dilution.
Third, the theater experience. Even without the airport-like security measures, I stopped going to the theater because I got tired of the discomfort. Theaters became smaller and smaller as houses were cut up into four- eight- and twelve-plexes. Even with new special-built multi multiplexes, there is less and less of the “personal” feel that smaller houses have. In addition, theaters get harder and harder to get to simply because there are fewer and fewer of them. More screens, yes, but fewer locations.
Fourth, remakes. Much like sequels, remakes often are poor substitutes for the originals. See sequels, quality and dilution.
Fifth, market dilution. Pushing more movies into a fixed-size market means fewer people will see each movie. Economics 101.
Sixth, cost. Over the period Mike covers, how much have ticket prices increased? How much have the costs to the theaters themselves been pumped up? I’m sure that fewer and fewer people can afford an evening at a movie, especially with the current economic situation.
Seventh, release lifetime. There is the expectation of making back all of the cost of making a movie, plus a profit, in the first couple of weeks. After that – DVD. This, plus theater experience and cost will make more people wait for the DVD.
Eighth, DVD. Yes, the DVD hurts gross. Why? People will wait for a DVD with extras rather than putting up with a poor theater experience at a higher cost.
Eighth, loss of small movie houses. This factors into theater experience, cost (to the theater) and lifetime. Since so many movies move to DVD, small houses can’t compete. Costs to the houses are up, too, I bet.
Ninth, and most importantly, calculations. Seriously. How one calculates gross will directly affect these numbers. If “gross” is strictly “number of theater tickets sold times the price per ticket”, then the change only reflects a reduction in the number of people going to the theater. If “gross” is “the sum of all income streams”, then there is a different trend at work – an actual loss in income per movie. I strongly suspect that if the industry included the income from DVD, first and second tier (i.e. HBO vs FX) cable and digital in the calculation of “gross”, the numbers would be on the increase with a bit of flattening in 2008, simply because more and more movies are going to these arenas more and more quickly. In addition, I cannot believe that more than 1100 movies were released in 2008 unless you’re talking worldwide or unless you’re including old movies released to DVD. If the latter, then we have to consider one additional “why”:
Number ten: Falsehood. Regardless of any other points Mike makes, it is clear that the MPAA is not above lying. They’re not above FUD. They and their counterparts in other industries have consistently shown that to them the ends always justify the means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not News - Marketing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is why their in trouble...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 min has been crap for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be a submission to Media Watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sodenbergh claims nobody would make the Matrix nowadays...
Inflation adjusted figures based on IMDB data, at wikipedia:
wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottom Dollar
For 12 months I haven't been able to afford the basics, let alone go to the movies - or buy a DVD. Not that the economic situation has prevented my employers from buying Bentley Coupes..
The Hollywood income might not have increased over a couple of years - but it hasn't really decreased either - these people are paying substantially less to their employees and contractors than they ever used to.
The money is not filtering down the food chain.
Even if my case is not the general rule, in my eyes the industry is still paying 50% less for it's services than it did a year ago - yet still maintaining a healthy income.
And if I object? I am replaced by someone willing to go cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tellin It Like It Aint
In EACH case, 60 Minutes a) lied, or published lies unchallenged; b) ignored important facts WHICH THEY WERE GIVEN; and c) put the absolutely most alarming and sensational slant they possibly could on the story. They sell controversy and shock. They do NOT report what can fairly be termed "news." If these people were ever journalists in the sense of accuracy, ethics, balance, etc., they certainly are not acting as such in the context of that show. And a SHOW it is, I'll give them that.
Based on my experience, I consider it a maxim that the truth on the ground is not EVER what "60 Minutes" represents it to be.
I'm just a regular Joe. If I know their game, so do most other people. Coincidence has given me a clearer perspective than some, no doubt, but I hear skepticism towards the 60 Minutes hacks from practically everyone with whom I've ever discussed their show. I doubt they sway anyone more than a few elderly TV zombies with their propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Had Similar Misgivings
After seeing this 60 Minutes reporrt on Movie Piracy, I had some misgivings, sort of a gut reaction, which your article helped support.
Thanks for the vindication!
http://tom-samp-journal.blogspot.com/2009/11/journal-sunday-november-1-60-minutes.ht ml
Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gsm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin bieber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilt-free pirate
When HBO has a vampire playing golf with a prominently displayed wii console, and Miss Sookie the Fang-banger mentioning wii my name, HBO is broadcasting a 'commercial' and violating our contract. So now I view HBO programming for free. The revenue generated by the embedded wii commercials should off-set the loss of my business and subsidise my none-compensatory viewing.
Corporations whine about consumers not respecting their proprietary property rights, shamelessly playing the victims with a straight face. Consumers are screwed by big corporations a hundred times a day. Taking advantage of the little people is part and parcel of every corporation's businesses model. Corporations even tamper with our government and thus democracy itself. Yeah. I feel reaaaaaaal guilty for bittorenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]