Bono Calls for Tougher Download Controls

[STR]

That's fine. But when people say, I don't want to pay X, so I'll just download it for free, then the system is broken. It's no longer based on demand, it's based on the ability to copy the product and give it away for free.

Thus, they are stealing that pile of shit. You can be certain that there are people that would buy the music, if not for the fact that they can illegally download it for free.[/QUOTE ]It does

NOTHING defies the laws of economics. It doesn't break, but business models do. Media companies are right, pirated copies are lost sales, however they're wrong that piracy is the cause. High prices are the cause. People won't go back to buying music until the price reflects demand. And people DO want to BUY music. People don't come up with 10,000 excuses for doing something wrong if they don't feel a little guilty about (like the dozen people in every conversation on the internet on this topic).

Now, using the law of economics, what will make people buy music? Well, the providers have 2 advantages. 1) Quality. 2) Convenience. People, being the inherently lazy creatures they are, will pay money if they don't have to search P2P networks for a good 256k rip. They'll pay even more for lossless, though that's a smaller market. Ideally, the Labels would band together in one single superstore. In reality, each of the big labels will end up with their own storefront, and the indies might glom onto their own service. Either is convenient enough. The labels do not have pricing power, so they have to cut the price to as low as it takes to sell. And 50 cents is probably not enough. It's probably around 10 cents a track, a dollar an album. Lossless could probably be priced 3-5 times higher.

DRM is shooting yourself in one of the two (and only two) legs you're standing on, convenience. It is a detriment to your existence as a profitable industry, so you have to kill it. Sorry, but 10 year olds have the tools and knowledge to crack it, it's not effective in the first place.

Now, $0.10/track is not going to support the music industry as it exists. The arcane contracts, massive promotions, and talent agents cannot exist any more. When you sign up with a label, you're getting a spot in their store and a couple of banner ads if either you pay for it, or they decide to comp you. It's going to end up like youtube, a vast ocean of random noise that occasionally creates a star. Radio stations will just play whatever is popular, not what they're paid to promote, except for very select few, huge acts.

 

[Stardusted]

You realize that James Cameron, genius that he is, did an end-run around piracy by making the film in 3D?

First off, about 15% of the income from Avatar is inflated over normal movies due to the surcharge for 3D glasses (it was another 20% at my theater) and a large number of IMAX screenings. Subtract about $150 million from its take and that's what we're looking at if prices were normal. This is why I wish they'd report the number of tickets sold instead of the dollar figure.

Second, the film being 3D it did two things: It made the film harder to pirate, and it gave people an excuse to see a theater on the big screen with proper presentation instead of sitting at home on their little LCD.

You will see a rise in 3D piracy once 3D displays get more common, and even then it will be more difficult than normal because it will require the camera to be in an optimal area, and it still won't look as good as an original source.

Believe it or not, 3D is a direct reaction from the film industry against piracy. We'll see how long it holds up.

Sorry but what you say is simply not true. Where I live tons of people went to see avatar in 2D, and many people that I know saw it twice. In 2D. Me included.

I am also aware of many friends that went to see it (again no 3D) who normally do not go to the movies. Your 3D piracy theory holds no water either, and of course I believe that 3D is a direct reaction to piracy, not. Just because you pre-state that even if I (or anyone else) don't believe it, it is true, won't actually make it true.

It's not just avatar anyway, movie industry's profits are on the high. Even before the success of avatar.

And that didnt come out of my head, it is based on facts given to the public. Really, believe it or not

 

[madmat]

Yup, and they either eventually get signed with a label, they subsist on touring (which usually leads to a record deal anyway), or they eventually go away because they can't support their music careers on freely giving out their music away and getting nothing in return. That's the point, the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2, would have a much tougher time to be given the freedom to create music since their work wouldn't be generating any income. It was that income in their formative years that made the difference between then continuing on to greater things and just going away because they couldn't afford it anymore because they weren't making a living.

And God forbid a recording artist makes any income, those greedy artists.

Sorry but fledgling bands make money by playing in small venues and hoping that someone of importance hears them by accident. Sharing their music allows them to stand a better chance of it being heard by someone that actually matters rather than the barflies in places like Davenport Iowa or Lodi Texas. Once they get "discovered" they can start playing in big venues and making the real coin. I have nothing against artists making money, I just hate hypocrites like Bono that say shit that they have no idea of. The interweb wasn't around when his shithouse band was up and coming, he has no fucking clue as to whether it would've helped or hindered him. My point is that no-name bands and song writers aren't being pirated, they're virally spreading their music of their own volition.

As nilepez said earlier, bands like Radiohead and NIN don't count since they already have absolutely massive global brand names. There's a difference between a fledgling band with talent and an established band with decades of work and multiple platinum albums behind them. Platinum albums that are still generating massive amounts of residual income, btw...

And yet again, you show that you have no clue. NiN "rewarded" their fans by giving albums away via the 'net. That not only gave back to the guys (and gals) that buy their music but gained some new fans from folks that might never have listened to their (Trent's) music in the first place and resulted in "butts in the seats" at concerts.

Maybe next time that you try to pick someone apart you'll actually gather your thoughts first.

 

[gdonovan]

That would imply that people are not illegally downloading music, which is clearly not the case.

The music industry is stating that profits are down due to people downloading music without paying for it, while that is certainly one factor I put forth the nothing that there is simply nothing worth buying.

The last 5 years I have purchased a grand total of 3 CD's, before that I use to buy them on a semi-regular basis. The last was Josh Groban's Noel, an excellent album of Christmas songs.

Nothing on the radio is worth buying. I have one of U2 last albums in the rack of my car someone gave me, aside from one song which gets rapidly boring the whole thing is garbage in my opinion.

 

[Stardusted]

The music industry is stating that profits are down due to people downloading music without paying for it, while that is certainly one factor I put forth the nothing that there is simply nothing worth buying.

The last 5 years I have purchased a grand total of 3 CD's, before that I use to buy them on a semi-regular basis. The last was Josh Groban's Noel, an excellent album of Christmas songs.

Nothing on the radio is worth buying. I have one of U2 last albums in the rack of my car someone gave me, aside from one song which gets rapidly boring the whole thing is garbage in my opinion.

That. They ignore again and again people (me included) that simply stopped buying music without pirating it. If a song is not worth buying it is not worth pirating as well, that's how I see it. There are lots of legally free awful songs on the net as well, I won't go out and download them.

The piracy is our main enemy and cause of loss is false and shortsighted.

 

[NKDietrich]

Bono is a giant number two.

 

[threeDguru]

Bono acts like he is such a humanitarian. All he sees is dollar signs.

How is trying to protect his investments and income, being humanitarian?

dude are you high?

 

[complexx]

Second, the film being 3D it did two things: It made the film harder to pirate, and it gave people an excuse to see a theater on the big screen with proper presentation instead of sitting at home on their little LCD.

You will see a rise in 3D piracy once 3D displays get more common, and even then it will be more difficult than normal because it will require the camera to be in an optimal area, and it still won't look as good as an original source.

Believe it or not, 3D is a direct reaction from the film industry against piracy. We'll see how long it holds up.

Lol. Are 3d glasses really that hard to get?

 

[six_storm]

This makes me wanna downloaded even more music.

 

[demingo]

That's fine. But when people say, I don't want to pay X, so I'll just download it for free, then the system is broken. It's no longer based on demand, it's based on the ability to copy the product and give it away for free.

Thus, they are stealing that pile of shit. You can be certain that there are people that would buy the music, if not for the fact that they can illegally download it for free.

This arguement has a few flaws. You assume in a "perfect" world no one will pirate. There will always be piracy. However, by reducing cost you do turn pirates and non-customers (people who simply wont spend X and wont download) into paying customers.

The second part is that you still equate piracy to stealing or theft, which it is not. Remember, copyright does not deal with real property, it deals with Intellectual Property, which is governed under different laws. You mention a free car, but when you take that car, someone loses it. There is one less car.

Let me ask you a question before you jump to defend Bono and copyright holders in general. Sandra Burt, a lady who works in a grocery store in England, was sent a cease and desist letter for singing to herself while at work. They said she violated their rights and needed a performance license to sing. Eventually they reversed course, but this is the kind of stupidity copyright holders are after.

Did her singing, without rights, harm the creators ability to live off their work? Did she hamper future creative efforts? Or was she just a woman who liked singing to pass the time?

I have no love whatsoever for copyright in its current form. The laws need to be rewritten.

 

[nilepez]

Were that true - why would iTunes and digital music sales be so successful right now (IE compared to physical media sales)?

People *are* willing to buy music, and sales are proportionate to what is offered. At 50c a pop (or 99c for a double/triple package) for good 256kbps MP4 music - I'd buy *all* my music.

Content will always be pirated, as it always has been - but I outright guarantee sales would increase if the price/content ratio was better.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm fairly certain that more music is illegally downlaoded than purchased from itunes and CD's generate the bulk of revenue. The reason for that, of course, is because CD's are generally bought by people over 30 (perhaps over 40) who grew up buying music, while those under 30 largely grew up downloading it using p2p programs.

Unless you believe every single album since 2000 was worse than the best album from that year, your argument doesn't hold up. For that matter, it doesn't make much sense in 2000 either, since I believe the best selling album was either a Backstreet boys album or an Nsync record, and I'm certain that neither of those was the best album in 2000.

 

[nilepez]

I won't try and justify stealing, but what I will justify is that if I paid for a movie or music, no matter what format it is in, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with it. What all the studio people seem to fail to realize, is all these DRM schemes and anti-piracy crap don't bother a "thief", they are going to break the law anyway, you know, cause they are a criminal. Sure the anti-piracy stuff might slow them down, but in the end they will just end up alienating paying customers with restrictions on things that they are supposed to own. I stopped "pirating" music years ago, but I'll tell you that Amazon's MP3 music store was a godsend when I first used it, unrestricted MP3's at 99 cents a pop? Hell, I got new CD's from the prodigy and the crystal method for 1.99 for the whole CD the day they came out. Legally. This is how you stop piracy, competition.

What DRM? I've never bought a CD that I couldn't rip to FLAC, MP3, or Vorbis.
Amazon's downloads have no DRM.
Itunes no longer has DRM.
Emusic has never had DRM.

I saw a post today, somewhere else, about the pricing on Office 2010:
any price > 0 is too much for productivity software.

That sums up the general attitude about music right now, but it will eventually apply to all creative works, including games and movies.

 

[nilepez]

That's fine. But when people say, I don't want to pay X, so I'll just download it for free, then the system is broken. It's no longer based on demand, it's based on the ability to copy the product and give it away for free.

Thus, they are stealing that pile of shit. You can be certain that there are people that would buy the music, if not for the fact that they can illegally download it for free.[/QUOTE ]It does

NOTHING defies the laws of economics. It doesn't break, but business models do. Media companies are right, pirated copies are lost sales, however they're wrong that piracy is the cause. High prices are the cause. People won't go back to buying music until the

High price? What the fuck is a low price? I can buy 6 month old CD's for under $10.00 from BMG (often for $5.00 - $6.00). I can buy new releases for 12 bucks (or less).

How is that expensive? Again, how do you afford a CD player or a Computer if you that's expensive? You know what's expensive? A Record that cost $8.00 when you made $2.00/hour, or a CD that cost $15.00 when you made $3.50 - $5.00/hour.
Inflation adjusted, Music prices have done nothing but fall for the last 40 years.

Now, using the law of economics, what will make people buy music? Well, the providers have 2 advantages. 1) Quality. 2) Convenience. People, being the inherently lazy creatures they are, will pay money if they don't have to search P2P networks for a good 256k rip. They'll pay even more for lossless, though that's a smaller market. Ideally, the

Why pay for that? It's on torrent sites for free. I can promise you if I search, I can find both lossless and high quality MP3s for free.....and it doesn't take that much searching to find them.

Now, $0.10/track is not going to support the music industry as it exists. The arcane contracts, massive promotions, and talent agents cannot exist any more. When you sign up with a label, you're getting a spot in their store and a couple of banner ads if either you pay for it, or they decide to comp you. It's going to end up like youtube, a vast ocean of random noise that occasionally creates a star. Radio stations will just play whatever is popular, not what they're paid to promote, except for very select few, huge acts.

Which means you're completely agreeing with what Bono said would happen if something doesn't change: most artists will never be developed and virtually none will ever become nationally known. In fact, most will break up and end it before they get anywhere, because it's too expensive and will pay next to nothing. I've seen some good bands disappear because a label dumps them and band members decide they can't support their families on hope and a dream.....though in many of these cases, the labels were guilty of pulling the rug out...in one case the band was showing success, but it just didn't matter.

 

[nilepez]

This arguement has a few flaws. You assume in a "perfect" world no one will pirate. There will always be piracy. However, by reducing cost you do turn pirates and non-customers (people who simply wont spend X and wont download) into paying customers.

I definitely don't assume that. However, in the current world, I know people (again people who make good money) who download albums instead of buying them. They are excited to hear the latest CD from <insert artist name>, but not one of them bought it.

The second part is that you still equate piracy to stealing or theft, which it is not. Remember, copyright does not deal with real property, it deals with Intellectual Property, which is governed under different laws. You mention a free car, but when you take that car, someone loses it. There is one less car.

That's just semantics. If I come up with a design for a perpetual motion device and you copy the file that has that design and sell perpetual motion machines, you still stole my IP.

As for the Car vs music, if you steal CD by Incredible Artist X, that's what less sale that Incredible Artist X can make, because instead of Incredible's Incredibly Awesome Album, you got it for free.

Did her singing, without rights, harm the creators ability to live off their work? Did she hamper future creative efforts? Or was she just a woman who liked singing to pass the time?
I have no love whatsoever for copyright in its current form. The laws need to be rewritten.

No I don't, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. One is about stealing music and the other is about performance rights.

Where I do think copyright laws need to change (and are currently moving in the wrong direction) is the constant extension of copyrights. The idea that a song is copyrighted for 80 years beyond the original writers death is ridiculous. The extension of filmed works (the Mickey Mouse law) was a bad one too. At some point, releasing that material into the public domain spawns creativity.

What that number is, I don't know, but they're currently too long, IMO.

 

[jimmyb]

That's just semantics. If I come up with a design for a perpetual motion device and you copy the file that has that design and sell perpetual motion machines, you still stole my IP.

I don't believe in intellectual property. I believe in government granted rights to exclusively copy something, as well as government granted rights to exclusively make something. I don't believe either of these qualifies as property, and incidentally neither does the law.

Companies, and more recently people who have been listening to these companies, refer to it as property, but I don't believe for a second that it is. I know what property is, and a copy right certainly isn't it.

 

[Blakestr]

The first mainstream artist to open their own label and own website who sells the album digitally, directly to me, without any money going to the "record company" and sells it proportionate (and their music doesn't suck) I'll paypal them right away...

For every $10 how much does the actual artist make? Let's say it's ten, maybe twenty percent? You could give an artist $5 bucks a cd and they would make hand over fist, other than bandwidth costs, there would be no overhead. I haven't bought a "physical" cd in years.

Fuck record companies, they destroyed alternative rock and pop. I know what I like, I don't need them at all. Technology has outgrown you, wither and die, thou art obsolete.

 

[Uncle]

As a previous writer pointed out, http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976
was 28 years with an extension for another 28, for a total of 56 years. The industry is making sure that anyone who grew up with new music they liked they will not be able to download it during their life time for free. Example look at all the old music that Time Warner is peddling to the over fifty's crowd called Memories. All late fifties and early sixties. If they wouldn't have extended the copyright, within 10 years all the early rock songs and the Memories would have been in the public's domain, free for downloading. Piracy is a smoke screen, keep everyone focused on a non issue while they change the copyright laws for total control. Think global that's a hell of a lot of money to still be made by these greedy bastards, I have no guilt what so ever of downloading what I consider my legacy and right which was taken away from me by some under fifty jerk off who can't see past his dick and his next paycheck. Theirs no one here who can't possibly believe that 56 years isn't long enough for a return on their artistic talent. Just ask the old timers who are doing the retro comeback how much their getting for any appearances. If the industry could get away with it they would charge them for singing their own songs in public.

 

[gdonovan]

For every $10 how much does the actual artist make? Let's say it's ten, maybe twenty percent? .

For most artists nothing for years and years, already covered this.

The companies get thier "promotion" costs back before shelling out one thin dime to the artists. The are exceptions like Metallica, which is why they were so vocal during the Napster days.

What I could find during a quick google-

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.

 

[Actuary]

I'm calling for tougher Bono controls. Does anyone really give a crap what he has to say? I'm tired of celebrities thinking their opinions are newsworthy and somehow important simply by the virtue of being famous. Bono needs to stick to music and shut the hell up. Same goes for others like George Clooney. I'm reminded of the scene from Team America: World Police.

 

[bass_ec]

I'm calling for tougher Bono controls. Does anyone really give a crap what he has to say? I'm tired of celebrities thinking their opinions are newsworthy and somehow important simply by the virtue of being famous. Bono needs to stick to music and shut the hell up. Same goes for others like George Clooney. I'm reminded of the scene from Team America: World Police.

Well played. I only read about 3 posts in this thread, but the intro sentence to yours made me stop and lol.

 

[gdonovan]

I have a question- How can Hollywood sell a DVD movie for $10 and make money?

We keep hearing about the staggering costs to make CD's that sell for $15 but it would seem to me to be far more expensive to make a movie.

To make music you need a band and a studio pretty much right? Contrast that to the hundreds if not thousands of people involved in making a movie plus locations, props, transport, etc.

I know I'm simplifying things a bit... but I have smelled a rat for years as far as the music companies go.

 

[Outamyhead]

I can't help but think of that South Park episode, where the music artists had to settle on slightly lower expectations than what they would if piracy wasn't around, and with the complaint coming from a man who has more money and children (6 was the last I heard) than most people on the planet, how about he gives a little to help his fellow struggling new artists...maybe an advertisement like the NSPCA, of all the neglected and abused artists out there we can help?

 

[beowulf7]

Thanks to Bono, now I'm putting U2 in the same category as Metallica (Lars Ulrich).

 

[Serpico]

Sorry but what you say is simply not true. Where I live tons of people went to see avatar in 2D, and many people that I know saw it twice. In 2D. Me included.

More than half the screenings for Avatar in the US are in 3D. Nearly half of the Avatar screenings worldwide are in 3D. Movie industry publications have estimated that the additional price for 3D has added another $100-$150 million to Avatar's take.

If you don't think that the use of 3D is inflating Avatar's already massive sales past normal levels, given the massive number of 3D screenings out there, then you're living in a dream world.

 

[Serpico]

Your 3D piracy theory holds no water either, and of course I believe that 3D is a direct reaction to piracy, not.

No, that's actually a big part of the pro-3D argument in the film industry. Let's see what James Cameron has to say about it:

In the days leading up to the film’s release last month, its director, James Cameron, seemed confident that the 3-D effects would essentially make it immune to piracy, telling The Times of London, “You can pirate a 3-D movie, but you can’t pirate it in 3-D, so you can’t bottle that 3-D experience.”

Unfortunately that hasn't proven to be the case, as that quote was pulled from this article on how Avatar has taken the film piracy record: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/movies/06arts-AVATARCOMMAN_BRF.html

But the TorrentFreak.com numbers seem to tell a different story: “Avatar” was illegally downloaded far more often than its closest competitor, the “Twilight” sequel “New Moon,” which was downloaded 610,000 times in its first week of release.

Either way, lots of people clearly still want to see it in a theater, in 3D and 3D IMAX, certainly enough to offset the people that are either watching 2D pirated copies on their little LCD or even worse, blurry 3D copies on their little LCD. Screenings here in LA are still packed even weeks after it came out.

Still, 20th Century Fox, which released “Avatar,” seemed unconcerned that piracy would hurt box office grosses, which last weekend surpassed $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales. “Bootleg copies are unlikely to have much impact,” a studio spokesman told The Times of London. “Seeing the movie in 3-D in a cinema offers an experience that cannot be replicated.”

 

[jimmyb]

All you've done is quote passages to indicate that people feel, because of 3D piracy would not be a factor. You have posted a single piece of evidence which supports your position that it was even a motivating factor in the development of the technology.

Additionally, even if we suppose piracy did bring about the development of 3D cinema, wouldn't that be to it's credit?

 

[jimmyb]

*haven't

 

[Serpico]

All you've done is quote passages to indicate that people feel, because of 3D piracy would not be a factor. You have posted a single piece of evidence which supports your position that it was even a motivating factor in the development of the technology.

Additionally, even if we suppose piracy did bring about the development of 3D cinema, wouldn't that be to it's credit?

First off, those "people" include James Cameron. If there's anybody worth quoting in the 3D discussion and the filmmaker's motivations for moving over to that format, its that guy. This isn't some random schlub with an uninformed opinion here.

Second, 3D technology existed long before internet piracy did, so to say that it was developed as a reaction is incorrect. Its adoption being advocated as a result of piracy is the issue.

The adoption of 3D, while artistically motivated, also needs financial motivation, otherwise who will put up the money to produce it? It costs more money to make a movie in 3D, period. Hell, let's go past production and go into presentation. Theater owners need to put down a significant investment to get 3D working in their theaters. One way you convince them to upgrade their theaters is to bring up the piracy issue, how 3D would have the dual effect of driving people to see movies in the theater because they currently cannot get that experience at home (reducing the odds of them pirating a film without seeing it in the theater), and how it would limit or eliminate the number of theaters where a good bootleg can be produced.

I'm positive that there is an even harder drive to get more theaters into 3D presentation, not only because of Avatar's wild success but also because of the bootlegging issue. If the number of 3D shows in the US was increased for 60% to 90%, you'd bet that it would be even harder to bootleg.

The funny thing that the article proved is that the movie with the most sales in history also has the most pirates in history. Its an assumption, but its probably a fair one to bet that the ratio of pirates to legitimate customers is fairly constant across most movies.

 

[Stardusted]

Movie producing companies make tons of money, they made last year more than ever, their income keeps rising and rising. The only reason to complain is because they think they should make even more money.

I am not pro-pirating. I dislike it, not because I think it is such a big deal, I just do.

But, to raise piracy so high in the crime ladder is insane. It is beyond insane, it shows clearly who are ruling a large part of our lives, and just how powerful money is, straight in our faces.

Do me a favour. If you are to read just one sentence, read this one and answer me please : Lets assume you have four friends. One of them kills a man, another one steals a necklace, the third begins to deal drugs and the fourth one downloads the latest Iron Maiden album in mp3 format.

WHO would you feel uncomfortable to keep hanging out with? Seriously, I mean, seriously... I refuse to stigmatize people and treat them like they pose a serious threat to our society because they just downloaded bono's latest song. Our law system is not supposed to begin in bono's and every other bono's pocket and take it from there to judge and punish.

Just think about it.

In some countries they cut your hand off for stealing. If I say I dislike and oppose that, does it make me pro-theft? We are losing ground and get confused, justice is blind, it isnt bono's bitch.

PS - I use bono as a symbol more than a person.

 

[Serpico]

Stardusted - Hi. There is no question that theft via download is far down the list as far as crimes go. There is also no question that people who have gotten prosecuted for downloading have been very unfairly punished in the past (its a different story with organizations that profit from actually facilitating piracy, they deserve what they get). Its ludicrous.

That said, we aren't arguing piracy's relative impact or importance compared to other crimes though, we're just arguing about piracy on its own. Does it have a net negative impact? Sure. Is the act of piracy worse than murder? Of course not.

It isn't a simple black and white argument, nothing is. My only real issue is when people (and I've seen it more than enough times just on these forums) actually try to justify piracy either by arguing that creative works like movies, music, or games should not have a dollar value assigned to them because they're just ones and zeroes and information wants to be free, or that companies make "enough money" and we shouldn't have to pay for content in the first place.

 

[nilepez]

I have a question- How can Hollywood sell a DVD movie for $10 and make money?

We keep hearing about the staggering costs to make CD's that sell for $15 but it would seem to me to be far more expensive to make a movie.

To make music you need a band and a studio pretty much right? Contrast that to the hundreds if not thousands of people involved in making a movie plus locations, props, transport, etc.

I know I'm simplifying things a bit... but I have smelled a rat for years as far as the music companies go.

Let's count the ways

1. DVDs almost always have a theatrical run, where much (if not all) of their production costs are recouped
2. Aside from the first week on sale, DVDs generally start at $18 (or more)
3. Because of the time required to download a DVD, it's less convenient to download than an album (even if that album was completely uncompressed)

 

[gdonovan]

Let's count the ways

1. DVDs almost always have a theatrical run, where much (if not all) of their production costs are recouped
2. Aside from the first week on sale, DVDs generally start at $18 (or more)
3. Because of the time required to download a DVD, it's less convenient to download than an album (even if that album was completely uncompressed)

Let me rephrase it this way- How much does it cost to make a average movie vs an an average album?

 

[gdonovan]

That was odd, I stepped away from the computer and the post went up before I was done!

Yes movies have a run but albums have concerts (which the company may or may not get a cut), not all DVD's start at $18 plenty can be found at the $10 (hell plenty can be found at $5 and blu-ray are commonly on sale for $9.99 now) and I really don't see the difference between downloading a movie than an album.

If you have the means to download an album chances are you can pull down a movie too, broadband is pretty widespread.

There is a lot of "voodoo math" that seems to go on at record companies, I for one would like to see an honest accounting of where all the money goes. I think the public does have a general right in this case since the record companies are using public services (FBI and Police) to go after citizens.

 

[Spewn]

The funny thing that the article proved is that the movie with the most sales in history also has the most pirates in history. Its an assumption, but its probably a fair one to bet that the ratio of pirates to legitimate customers is fairly constant across most movies.

I don't know if it's fairly constant, but I think the important thing to note is that the most popular movies, games, and music are also the most pirated. Is anyone surprised by this? The idea that piracy hurts sales yet simultaneously shows its highest rate alongside the best-selling items is...conflicted, at best.

 

[Azhar]

I don't know if it's fairly constant, but I think the important thing to note is that the most popular movies, games, and music are also the most pirated. Is anyone surprised by this? The idea that piracy hurts sales yet simultaneously shows its highest rate alongside the best-selling items is...conflicted, at best.

Well it depends on the success of the movie.

If I made $100 million from the movie's debut and lost $2 million to piracy, hey, I'll still be happy.

But if my movie fizzled and only made $7 million, but I lost $2 million to piracy, I'll probably feel the sting.

 

[ikarinokami]

Bono is right.

Nothing the music industy can do, will ever compete with free.

There will be just a lot less music.

In music biz, the big aritst support all the little artists. what will happen is that only artsist that can support themselves will be produced.

porn/music/pc should all be seen as cautionary tales and prove that nothing is ever free, there is always a cost, and in this case the cost will be a severe lack of content.

 

[Actuary]

Well it depends on the success of the movie.

If I made $100 million from the movie's debut and lost $2 million to piracy, hey, I'll still be happy.

But if my movie fizzled and only made $7 million, but I lost $2 million to piracy, I'll probably feel the sting.

Solution: Don't make a terrible movie.

 

[jimmyb]

Its adoption being advocated as a result of piracy is the issue.

Again, you've shown no evidence to suggest that this is the case. The quotes you've provided sound like the anti-piracy effects are incidental to that fact that it's in 3D.

Does it have a net negative impact? Sure.

I'm not sure that this is the case. I have no idea how one would even begin weighing the economic impact of piracy (probably negative) against the societal benefits of the public having access to very low cost art and science.

 

[Azhar]

Solution: Don't make a terrible movie.

Thank you Captain Obvious I'm just noting that piracy does hurt sometimes.

 

[Stardusted]

Bono is right.

Nothing the music industy can do, will ever compete with free.

There will be just a lot less music.

In music biz, the big aritst support all the little artists. what will happen is that only artsist that can support themselves will be produced.

porn/music/pc should all be seen as cautionary tales and prove that nothing is ever free, there is always a cost, and in this case the cost will be a severe lack of content.

A lot less music? Since when do you think music=money? Your statement is completely out of this world. Internet made music A WHOLE LOT MORE than it ever was.

You should be careful when you use statements about things you do not seem to understand.

Also the "can't compete with free" is also not true. There are so many reasons this is also not true, that I can't decide where to start...

...in fact, now that I think about it, thank you for posting here Bono. Could I have an autograph?