Congressional Research Service Shows Hollywood Is Thriving
from the shouldn't-congress-wonder-why-they-need-sopa/pipa? dept
The Congressional Research Service is the research arm of Congress that is widely respected as presenting (non-partisan) high quality, extremely credible research for folks in Congress. In fact, the quality is so good, that many are annoyed that the output of their research, despite being public domain, is rarely made available to the public. The only way that information is released is if the elected official who requested it decides to release it. Thankfully, some of our elected officials do just that.Recently, Senator Ron Wyden asked CRS if it could explore the state of the movie industry today as compared to 1995 on a variety of different criteria. You can read the full report embedded below, but here are a few key points. First off, despite the industry's regular attempt to play up its contribution to GDP and employment, the report found that the combined GDP contribution of both the "motion picture and sound recording" industries was a whopping 0.4% in 2009. Back in 1995... it was also 0.4%.
Similarly exaggerated? Its dire straits. Let's take a look at box office revenue:
It doesn't sound like things are that bad these days in Hollywood. So why do we need massive legal changes again?
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: business, congressional research service, copyright, data, hollywood, movies, pipa, protect ip, sopa, thriving
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We need legal changes because they are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
Yep, a bit of simple math shows that a professional making $80,000/year would need over 300 years to make even close to those numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
Piracy has killed the movie industry? Tell that to the CEOs that make more money than most of their employees, COMBINED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please keep your serial killers straight to avoid unnecessary confusion!
Also, But... But... Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the content providers can control the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOX_OFFICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=D EFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-11-15-30-22
By the way, passed the 1,000 comment mark recently. But that doesn't include 500-some that mysteriously disappeared during my vacation months starting last winter. -- Mike thanks me for every one, says it's great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Perhaps if they weren't betting on the Muppets to save them and put out some good movies instead, things would be different.
Or perhaps people just have better things to do than watch movies these days? Hell, I don't want to go out to see movies. I can do that at home on a nice TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
But I don't really blame Hollywood. I blame audiences who keep giving their money to garbage while great, original movies go unseen. People have to get over marketing hype.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
That's a major breakthrough for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
But as a counter-point (not that you really had one there, but I'll try):
Like the stock market, the economy has its ups and downs. And also like the stock market, you need to look at how you're doing long term. Smart people don't look at one small event and assume the entire market is always like that :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
No they don't. The article you posted was for a *single* data point, compared to cherry-picked "low"s at other times. Considering your displayed understanding of economics (and thus statistics) I suppose this might come as a shock to you, but it's impossible to correlate a trend from a single point.
By the way, passed the 1,000 comment mark recently.
Just think - if you'd spent that time studying statistics or economics, you might actually have something relevant to contribute! Maybe that could be your new-years resolution - to actually learn something about the stuff you post? Please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
In other words: nearly all of Hollywood's products suck so badly that I won't watch them for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you mean
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
The last movie I watched was Transformers 3, before that was Wall-E. Before that it would have been Return of the King. Incidentally, it costs more to see a movie than it does to buy the DVD when it comes out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
And maybe I want to see 4 films a year as the rest either are remakes or they suck or they have subject material I would never want to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Nah. But you can open the files with LibreOffice, for free!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Another record broken at the box office last month! Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Did it ever occur to Hollywood that the reason they might have bad weekends is because they are not putting out as much good material that people are willing to pay for, or just rehashing old movies all together. Footloose is one of the more recent ones that comes to mind. Also, the national economy is not in good shape, yet Hollywood/Recording industry still want record breaking profits. RIAA & MPAAI, I will not pay for a turd, no matter how shiny it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
For the handful of vocal people on here that are being forward and debating, there is a shit ton of other people that say "Oh, gonna be greedy now? Fine. /Boycott" and never even say another word about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Specifically, the section on the
Biggest Combined Gross for All Movies in a Single Weekend
Looks like of the five biggest weekends, two have been in this year. The remaining record weekends were in 2008 and 2009. Then look at the chart below that one, the worst weekends were all from 2000 and 2001.
It certainly doesn't sound to me like the movie industry has any grounds for complaint about the box office revenue this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
So....because you have one bad weekend in the last decade of moviegoing (during which, by the way, most years were more profitable than not, and the CEO's are being paid FIVE TIMES what they were 15 years ago) that means we need legislation that erodes due process, civil liberties, all but abolishes the bill of rights and the 1st and 4th amendments, and makes sharing a FELONY and giving MORE jail time to someone sharing a michael jackson song than to the man who ACTUALLY KILLED MICHAEL JACKSON HIMSELF?
REALLY?
Pardon me if I take a moment in stunned disbelief to say:
FUCK
YOU
and the paid-for congressman you rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
By the way, did you have AP's approval to copy that newsflashy sort of sentence? I'll have you know that AP doesn't believe in or acknowledge things like fair use so consider yourself whacked across the head with a blunt object, courtesy of Associated Press.
PIRATE!! Thief of copyright! Horrible person! Immoral, unethical bag of water and carbon!!! May you rot in hell!!!! Or at least your own delusions!
And so what that box office receipts are down? That's supposed to prove something other than a continuing bad economy or that the overwhelming bulk of Christmas releases are, for lack of a better word, crap?
Again, thanks for all your posts, blue. We wouldn't be the same without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, the AP says otherwise. Who knows?
Quantity over quality - big time! So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's only one person on the planet worthy of a $1m/year salary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's only one person on the planet worthy of a $1m/year salary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's only one person on the planet worthy of a $1m/year salary...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beautiful
How do we get a copy into the hands of every congressman/senator so that they'll stop echoing the entertainment industry's double-digit gdp percentage claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beautiful
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the secondary sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, but..
But you also have to understand that this also includes control of Distribution in the WHOLE of the USA.
It also shows full Control over what is shown in the theaters.
IF' you counted all the people involved in the theaters, distribution, and OVER priced food. you could get those numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, how about a graph of ticket sales and ticket prices? That makes it a little clearer, how ticket sales are DOWN significantly, and the money made up only by increases in ticket prices (mostly because of the 3D surcharge).
If you are going to run with some numbers, why not tell ALL the truth, rather than just one side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
see, I can do it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would rather read, play a video game, or rent a movie.
Right now however, if someone else really wanted to go though, I would.
If SOPA/PROTECTIP passes, I will never go again, even if someone asks, on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The trend does seem to be towards interactive entertainment, and less sit on your ass and watch this crappy remake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps we should start calling it inactive entertainment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Proof Is Staring You In The Face
This is why we need important laws like SOPA/PIPA, to create wealth like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Proof Is Staring You In The Face
Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Proof Is Staring You In The Face
I know I won't be spending more money on those things. If the price goes up, I'll do something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Proof Is Staring You In The Face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Proof Is Staring You In The Face
You yourself said it--the valuable Intellectual Property created by the recording and film industries has remained stagnant at 0.4%. Why? Precisely because of piracy. If it weren't for the pirates, that 0.4% could have grown to, who knows, 4%, 40%, 400% by now.
This is why we need important laws like SOPA/PIPA, to create wealth like that."
Create wealth? if it were jobs to be saved i could've agreed. but seeing how the difference in jobs is nearly 20k spread over multiple companies it might as well be blamed to the current economy state.
that as side will those laws create jobs; most likely will the money generated by those laws go to those workers? i think not as said before those CEO's board members will likely see the majority of that on their annual bonus cheque. and I for one will not sponsor a CEO because he thinks after 15 years a salary increase of 300%+ isn't enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would like to know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would like to know...
Taken together I suspect the profits and revenues are negative once the rare hit is removed from them. One reason why the producers tend to be silent on the whole issue.
All in all bad reality shows are the best bet which is why so few of your union's membership is working these days because reality tv is incredibly cheap to make, demands only first year film making course quality and can be shot on a $300 handy cam.
Not a pirate there at all. Except those Hollywood casts as such. Like the pirate sites they whinge on about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would like to know...
It is a similar model used by the recording industry. The Canadian arm was on the hook for up to 6 billion owed to people they "forgot" to pay, they settled for 50 millionish and one of them is trying to force their insurance company to pay off on them ignoring their obligation to pay their workers.
The Hollywood accounting made a Harry Potter film that took in tons of money, look like it was a complete loss on paper. One would think if a "Blockbuster" like Harry Potter is such a dog, why would they have made more. I'm guessing because what they record on the accounting sheets is craftily whittled down to nothingness, lowering what they have to pay out to anyone working for/with them.
The Union is using scare tactics, the truth is if they managed to get these crap laws passed then you will be out of jobs.
No one will ever find out about a new tv series, because any coverage not approved will be deleted. Any bad review will be deleted. Any fansites will be deleted, and the person running it will end up facing jail time. Consumers will be in terror of even tweeting anything about a show, less they come get them. Twitter will most likely filter tv show names to avoid the hassle of yet another delete it or be blackholed off the internet and sued for billions demand letter.
People will look for new entertainment avenues where the people producing the content understand the consumers are not the enemy and the internet can be their best freind... up until they declare every form of streaming not owned by the major corporations has to be infringing content and is blackholed with a simple form letter with no one making sure they aren't lying about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OBVIOUS
POOOOOOOOOOWER GRAAAAAAAAB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]