MPAA And Its Priorities: Asks US Gov't To Stop Soldiers From Buying Bootleg DVDs

from the maybe-if-you-made-the-movies-available... dept

Apparently, it's difficult for US soldiers in places like Iraq to get access to Hollywood movies legitimately, so it should come as little surprise that they might pick up bootleg DVDs to keep up with what they're missing back at home. Rather than actually supplying content for the military, it appears the MPAA decided to send a letter asking for details about how US Central Command is stomping out this practice, and asking if it will ban soldiers from going into stores that sell bootleg DVDs. Thankfully, USCC said "no," noting that it didn't want to harm Iraqi entrepreneurs and had no jurisdiction over shops selling bootlegs... while also suggesting that "the provision of popular entertainment like first-run movies, concerts and other events will help to curtail the demand for pirated media." In other words, stop worrying about piracy and maybe send over some movies for us to watch already.

Filed Under: hollywood, mpaa, soldiers, us military

What Is So Special About A Movie's Theatrical Release?

from the put-the-horse-in-front-of-the-cart dept

The complexities of Hollywood economics are something of a mystery to most Hollywood outsiders who don't understand how the money flows from movie-goers to the producers, movie distributors and the studios behind major films. Despite a ton of reporting (and even some studies) focusing on ticket sales at the box office, Edward Jay Epstein points out that box office revenues are far from being the bread-and-butter of Hollywood:

Box office sales no longer play nearly as important a role. And yet newspapers, as if unable to comprehend the change, continue to breathlessly report these numbers every week, often on their front pages. With few exceptions, this anachronistic ritual is what passes for reporting on the business of Hollywood.

So what is the actual business model for Hollywood movies? Epstein notes that only about a tenth of the total revenues for the major movie studios comes from American theaters -- and the lion's share of revenue comes from licensing deals in the form of DVD sales, TV broadcasting rights and all sorts of other distribution deals. It's no wonder, then, that the industry is so anchored to intellectual property rights and so focused on doing anything to preserve its lucrative licensing business.

We've seen a lot of alternative proposals for making money from movies, but if the box office sales are really just a fraction of the movie industry's revenues, why are theatrical releases made out to be such a big deal? Perhaps instead of delaying the release of movies to home theaters, certain movies should be released to Netflix/RedBox/Blockbuster first -- and then only the titles that have enough demand for the big screen should make it to a theatrical release. Obviously, there's the argument that if an audience could watch a movie at home for ~$1, there would be no reason to pay $10 to see the same movie in the theater. But that assumes there is nothing special about seeing a movie on the big screen.

Given the example of how Paranormal Activity only screened in nationwide cities after fans demanded it, offering movies that people actually want to see in theaters may be a better way of filling seats. Or maybe there really is no reason to go to movie theaters anymore.

Filed Under: economics, hollywood, movie industry, movies

Juliet vs. Juliet: Did Someone Forget To Tell Hollywood You Can't Copyright An Idea?

from the romeo-vs.-romeo dept

A few years back, we wrote about the oddity of Hollywood studios often paying newspapers or others for "the rights" to a particular news story. But, there's no legal reason why you need to do so (with -- potentially -- a few exceptions for the more modern concept of publicity rights) in most cases. That's because a news story is based on facts, and you can't copyright facts. You also can't copyright an idea. Now, there are plenty of good reasons why movie studios do pay for such "rights" even if they don't need to. For example, by licensing the rights, they also get access to certain people who know the story better than others. It also can lend an air of legitimacy to the movie. However, perhaps one reason why studios license the rights to an idea or a news story is because they don't even realize they don't have to.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for the ongoing lawsuit between two movie studios over who can make and/or release a movie about people seeking advice in love by leaving letters at the supposed gravestone of Juliet Capulet (of "Romeo &" fame). Apparently, two separate studios made movies on the topic, and one is suing to stop the other from releasing the movie.

There's Summit Entertainment, who is releasing a movie called Letters to Juliet, which they made after licensing a book by the same name, that told the story of the letters left at the gravestone and of a girl who responds to one of them. But then there's EPV Enterprises, who is asking for Summit's movie to be blocked, noting that it's working on a "Juliet" movie itself, called Dear Juliet -- which it licensed from a group called Club di Giulietta, who has (in real life) been responding to those letters.

While the two movies may be based on the same premise, it sounds like they're very different in terms of the actual story. And we've certainly seen similar movies come from multiple studios around the same time (Antz/Bugs Life, Dante's Peak/Volcano, Deep Impact/Armageddon, The Illusionist/The Prestige, etc...). While Summit says it's working to settle the lawsuit before a ruling is reached, it seems likely that it should prevail in any lawsuit as well. You can't copyright facts or basic ideas -- and it doesn't look like these two movies are the same -- just built off the same idea.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, juliet capulet, movie rights, movies
Companies: epv enterprises, summit entertainment

Hollywood Threatens To Stop Selling DVDs In Spain In A Push To Increase Unauthorized File Sharing?

from the confused dept

Robert Ring points us to the news that Hollywood studios are now threatening to stop selling DVDs in Spain, and are blaming "piracy." Specifically, Michael Lynton, of Sony Pictures, the guy who insists that nothing good has come from the internet, is claiming:

"Spain is on the brink of no longer being a viable home-entertainment market for us."

I'm really curious how Lynton keeps his job when his response to a market challenge is to leave the market entirely, shifting the unauthorized rate from whatever it is all the way up to 100% by choice. This is the same guy who claimed that the internet was killing the movie business, in the midst of a year with more movie releases than ever before and the largest box office take ever. He's also in charge of the company that wouldn't even support one of its own movies for the Oscars because it was afraid that the Oscar reviewer copies would end up online, even though the movie was already available for download.

This is a CEO who seems to want to blame everyone else for his own failures in giving people a reason to buy. He's blaming the internet when the real issue is his own inability to figure out how to provide scarce value that people want to pay for. I can't imagine how the board meetings go: "Hey, so how are you capitalizing on this massive increase in movie interest?" "Ah, well, we're dropping out of markets because the kids download." How do you manage to lead a company when your response to a boom in interest in your business is to take away one of the reasons to buy and then to blame the people who want your product? It's astounding.

Filed Under: dvds, hollywood, piracy
Companies: sony

Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers

from the this-is-a-mistake dept

While not a huge surprise, it's worth discussing just how bad an idea it was for Warner Bros. Studios to get Netflix to delay renting DVDs of its movies for 28 days in order to offer up more streaming content. To recap, the very, very, very confused movie studios seem to think that the way to deal with increasing competition is to just add more windows to releases -- and one way to do that is to delay when you can rent a movie. In the studios' incredibly short-sighted thinking, they believe this will make more people buy DVDs -- the one area of the movie business that has been on the decline of late. At the same time, the studios have been pissed off at Netflix for routing around them and getting rights to stream movies from Starz, and as such, have been denying requests to stream more movies.

So, the compromise is getting Netflix to delay the rentals in exchange for more streaming content.

It's hard to express just how bad an idea this is for Warner Bros., and how far out of touch with their customers they must be to think this makes any sense from a business standpoint. What they are saying is that they are not going to give in to customer demand and offer them what they want, but actually make it more difficult, more annoying and more confusing for them to get what they want -- and (at the same time!) screwing up basic marketing plans as well. Now, when movies are released on DVD and the large group of people who prefers renting to buying goes online to their Netflix account to do so, they won't be able to. Four weeks later, they'll be looking for something else. And, for those who simply want to see it right away, they're now more likely to get it in an unauthorized manner.

Under what set of logic would it ever make sense to give the customer less of what they want in an era when increased competition from other sources is causing them to already wonder if they should buy your product?

Filed Under: business models, dvds, hollywood, movies, rentals, sales, streaming, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

Is Hiding A New DRM Standard Behind The Guise Of 'It Works On Any Device' Really That Compelling?

from the not-convinced dept

A few months back, we wrote about Disney's attempt to create a new kind of DRM called "keychest" that would supposedly let a "buyer" (really, limited use "renter") access the content he or she paid for on a variety of devices. As I noted at the time, all this was really doing was giving you back your fair use rights on content, while wrapping it in additional DRM. Many noted that this was actually Disney's attempt to respond to a wider industry initiative (that Disney is not a part of) called DECE for Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem. While many are excited about this, I still fail to see what the big deal is. With the Consumer Electronics Show underway this week, DECE is getting a ton of publicity, where it will be demoed. But it's still the same old story. It's giving you your fair use rights wrapped up in another layer of DRM that you have to hope never goes away. It's good that the industry is finally realizing that locking you to a single device is a bad idea, but this isn't the solution.

Filed Under: copyright, dece, drm, fair use, hollywood, movies

Movie Studios Pissed Off At Netflix, Don't Want To Allow More Streaming Movies

from the this-will-not-end-well dept

Honestly, at what point do entertainment execs finally figure out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it in, they're only encouraging them to get that content through unauthorized means? We already knew that the big movie studios were annoyed with Netflix and trying to get Netflix to delay movie rentals until at least a month after the DVD comes out. Now we have an explanation why. As JJ was the first (of a few) to send in, the studios apparently are quite annoyed that, in order to jumpstart its movie streaming offering, Netflix routed around the movie studios, and signed a deal with Starz that allowed it to stream the same movies without a direct deal with the studios. It's not clear how or why Starz had the right to also stream movies through Netflix, but I'm guessing it was a loophole in Starz' deals with the studios -- a loophole that's now closed. So, Netflix is saying it needs to convince Hollywood it's not the enemy, but Hollywood isn't quite buying it yet.

This really shouldn't be a huge surprise. After all, this is Hollywood, where reports that actually show that the movie industry will grow quite a bit in the next decade are also used to claim that rental services like Redbox and Netflix are killing off jobs. It's also the world where Hollywood execs still think that the answer to their problems (problems like its best box office year ever) is to just add more release windows. It's as if they still think that keeping content away from people makes them more likely to buy.

Filed Under: dvds, hollywood, movies, studios
Companies: netflix

Oh Look, People Are Already Looking At Expanding How Selectable Output Control Will Be Abused

from the no-surprise-there dept

For quite some time we've been covering how the MPAA has been pushing to get the FCC to allow them to use "Selectable Output Control" (SOC) to stop you from being able to record certain movies. In theory, the Hollywood studios claim that this will let them put movies out on video-on-demand offerings earlier than they do now. In actuality, there's nothing stopping them from putting these VoD offerings out now (and some do already). The studios' claim that this is needed to stop "piracy" of these movies also makes little sense, since even the studios admit that all of their movies are quickly available through unauthorized means around the time they're released in the theaters (i.e., well before they would be available on TV).

The real issue, of course, is that Hollywood wants more control over your TV and what you can do with it. But when people suggest this, the MPAA and the studios scoff and say that's ridiculous. They just want this one tiny exemption and nothing else. Except, that's not true at all. Remember that recent Congressional hearing about live streaming and sporting events? Well, the folks at Public Knowledge noticed that one of the speakers there was already noting how the FCC exemption on SOC could be useful in stopping "piracy" of sports broadcasting -- which of course is totally outside the realm of what the MPAA is asking for. But, of course, once the FCC allows someone to break your DVR or other consumer electronics device, it's not hard to see everyone else asking for their own "exception" as well... How about rather than breaking the devices that everyone purchased for a reason, the content providers stop freaking out about technology, and start learning how to use it to their advantage?

Filed Under: drm, hollywood, live broadcasts, selectable output control, soc, sports, streaming, tv

Piracy Destroying Hollywood Right To Yet Another Record Year At The Box Office... In A Recession

from the cry-me-a-river dept

We've been scratching our heads at the various claims from the movie industry that piracy is destroying the industry -- especially as the trends over the past few years have been significantly more movies being made and significantly more money being made at the box office. And, once again, reports are coming out that 2009 will be another record year at the box office. And it's even more impressive, considering that the country has been in a pretty bleak recession the whole year. You would think that such things, including greater than 10% unemployment would get people to hold back on increasingly expensive nights out at the movies, but people are still going and still paying. So, again, we have to ask where is this evidence that piracy is destroying Hollywood? Or is the same "evidence" like the study we recently saw that came with the headline that Redbox was going to take away revenue, while the actual study said the opposite?

Filed Under: box office, hollywood, movies

If Hollywood Is Upset About $1/Day Movie Rentals, How Do They Feel About 6 Cents Per Hour Rentals?

from the it'll-destroy-Hollywood-even-more! dept

So Hollywood is all concerned that Redbox DVD rentals at $1 per day are going to do serious damage to the Hollywood economy -- except, of course, that the actual numbers say exactly the opposite. Still, if they're all freaked out (and some are in court) over $1/day rentals, you'd have to imagine they're not particularly pleased about rentals that could be even cheaper. Rose M. Welch points us to the news of a new DVD rental kiosk operation, called Big Box DVD, which is moving forward with a business model of charging a whopping 6 cents per hour for a new release (4 cents per hour for an older release). For folks willing to just rent the video, take it home, watch it and return it, that can be quite cheap. Of course, if you keep it for a full 24 hours, it'll be a bit over a dollar. How long until we hear about how much damage this is doing to Hollywood?

Filed Under: business models, dvd rentals, dvds, hollywood, kiosks, movies
Companies: big box dvd, redbox