Hollywood's outdated business model requires new laws just to keep it alive

ever wondered why holly wood releases a movie at different times across the planet?
it used to be that actual film was shipped from one movie theatre to another by sailing ship or steam ship,
so why do we still have a movie release schedules that follow thinking from years when the fastest form of transport was a boat?

what effect does the intentional slow down of release of movies globally have on film makers and film watchers?
for the film makers its simply about making more money, for the film watchers it is simply about being frustrated.

is there a reason why film makers cant move into the internet age?
there is no technological reason why film watchers have to be frustrated, and this frustration often leads to a pirated solution.

so is the idea that film must be released slowly (for larger profits) actually frustrating people into going to other sources for the content?
without doubt if some one in america is raving about a new movie, i want to see it,
and i dont see why i should have to wait because holly wood wont get with the internet.

so in a strangely circular argument, if there was a world wide release of films and movies that anyone with money can access, this in itself would solve the frustration and piracy in one go?

because the internet works at the speed of light and because film watchers talk to each other over this speed of light communications platform, they are aware of films as soon as they are released.

which is why it is so frustrating to have to wait for staggered release dates.

so does the out dated release model actually agrivate the situation and make piracy a less frustrating option?
yes.

rather than change the approach of release to the changing speed of communications and expectations of film watchers, hollowood has forced counties into passing laws that benefit their distribution model (frustration sales)

what laws have other countries had to pass to prop up hollywoods outdated business model?
i come from new zealand, in my country its called "the three strikes law"

it allows ISP's to spy on citizens on behalf of "rights holders" (film makers)
it allows for guilty until proven innocent on civil crimes of copyright infringement

and all this is only needed because holly wood refuses to release films and movies in a timely manner,

so why does hollywood need all this power, after all even my government is not allowed to spy on me, but hollywood is?

it makes no logical sense to preserve the rights of one group (hollywood) just in case i infringe on them by taking away the rights of another group (film watchers) by allowing spying and guilty to proven innocent type trails.

so is it circularly argued that by not moving with the technology and the times, that hollywood can empower itself over the lives of film watchers spy on them, frustrate them with pointless delays and make laws that further make film watchers the enemy of films,

so that holly wood can make more money?
or so that holly wood can have more power over the lives of ordinary people who just want to watch films?

so if they fixed their distribution model none of these loss of privacy or loss of revenue would be a problem?
we would not be spied on and guilty untill proven innocent, thats for sure.

some piracy would always occur, but not the amount we see today, you see film makers can "claim" privacy as lost sales and get a tax break, so in effect it would cost them some tax money if they fixed the release/privacy problem.

so instead we are required to pass laws to make people less private.

this parallels with the kim dot com case,
the loss of privacy (GCSB spying)
the guilty untill proven innocent (assets seized without trial)
the spying on new Zealand citizens (ISP watching internet use for violations)

having to invent new laws so that holly wood can get its way,
instead of simply moving with the times of the age we are required to give up all our liberty and privacy so that hollywood can make more money and become even more powerful over our daily lives.

at what point do swat teams start turning up with machine guns, and treat us like terrorists?
i guess that point has passed, is this the future of holly wood?

the past?

as a new zealand citizen i am appalled by holly wood and what it has done to our rights in the name of theirs,
raids on the dot com mansion were over the top, in true hollywood fashion overkill.

treating civilians like terrorists and film watchers like potential criminals,
while you refuse to fix the core of the issue makes your intentions clear.

holly wood refuses to in gauge the internet because it wants the internet dead,
and is prepared to strangle innovation and make our children criminals.
in the process.

for a few more dollars

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Well first off not all movie theaters are digital, some are still using actual 35mm film for the movies and must be shipped to locations. Which costs the companies more than a digital transfer.

Many movies are released by seasons ie summer movies, NZ has a different summer than northern hemisphere.

Some movies are released for targeted holiday weekends, does NZ celebrate July4th, is it a 3day weekend to boost box office totals?

Movie distributors buy/rent movies from Hollywood and resell/loan the films to theater chains, different rules for different countries=different release dates.

Hollywood also competes against movies made in other countries and won't release a new movies in Italy where a native movie is popular and will delay the release until it is likely to make more money.

Hollywood will use reviews in one country to promote in another country to drum up interest.

Those are just some of the reasons that movies are released at different dates in different locations, hope this explains why.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Well first off not all movie theaters are digital, some are still using actual 35mm film for the movies and must be shipped to locations. Which costs the companies more than a digital transfer.

the cost of filming in digital is significantly lower than film, causes less waste and is faster to edit.

Many movies are released by seasons ie summer movies, NZ has a different summer than northern hemisphere.

are you saying people wont want to watch a movie because of the season?
because most movies that are released are not specific to seasons

Some movies are released for targeted holiday weekends, does NZ celebrate July4th, is it a 3day weekend to boost box office totals?

no but a movie released on the 4th of july would be watched after that date in my country, anyway so why would that be a problem? we dont get movies on the same day you do, so why would that cause any problem?

Movie distributors buy/rent movies from Hollywood and resell/loan the films to theater chains, different rules for different countries=different release dates.

and those agreements are still decided as if we still used sailing ships to move film,
we do not use ships today we have planes and the internet, but we still use "territory" release,

Hollywood also competes against movies made in other countries and won't release a new movies in Italy where a native movie is popular and will delay the release until it is likely to make more money.

money over frustrated film watchers, in the mean time pirated copies are on the internet,
world wide releases would reduce piracy and lower watcher frustration.

Hollywood will use reviews in one country to promote in another country to drum up interest.

again from the 1800's thinking, a media buzz on the internet works many many times faster than last centuries media reporting model

Those are just some of the reasons that movies are released at different dates in different locations, hope this explains why.

i hope you can explain why i am being spyed on by my internet service provider,
just in case i download a movie?

and why reported piracy losses can be deducted from tax liabilities?
is the loss to piracy just a guess?
is this an economic incentive to never really address the root cause of piracy?

xploder

OK my mistake I thought you were looking for honest answers, now I realize you are just pissed about anti-piracy in regards to downloading. I wish you would have been more honest in your op and saved us both some time. Good luck.

Originally posted by Carreau
OK my mistake I thought you were looking for honest answers, now I realize you are just pissed about anti-piracy in regards to downloading. I wish you would have been more honest in your op and saved us both some time. Good luck.

i apologise if you find me angry,
i would like to debate why it is laws that have to change,
you pointed to trivial problems with why the industry refuses to change,
where is the online movies?
why is there no co-ordinated worldwide release?

why do hollywood get to spy on us?
why would they change if no one spoke out against their bad business practices?

i all honesty i want to know,
you took the pro position,

would you like to look at it from a consumers point of view?

xploder

One other factor that you've forgotten is that not all Hollywood moves ever do in fact EVER get released worldwide.

If a movie has been shown to be a complete and utter total flop when released in the USA, it will not and should not be put in front of the worldwide audience. To do so would be a complete waste of time, screens and money.

Not sure why you wish this scenario to happen.

Originally posted by alfa1
One other factor that you've forgotten is that not all Hollywood moves ever do in fact EVER get released worldwide.

and tv shows that were cancelled get brought back to life with netflix,

If a movie has been shown to be a complete and utter total flop when realeased in the USA, it will not and should not be put in front of the worldwide audience. To do so would be a complete waste of time, screens and money.

nice of you to point out what we can watch is dictated by american audiences.

[/quote[Not sure why you wish this scenario to happen.





a idea of artificial scarcity,
if the film was digitized, and not successful in america why not digitize it and release it world wide?
the film may prove profitable else where.

when digital content is distributed on the internet it costs very little to reproduce it for consumption,
the costs are low and the market global

at $2 american a movie that was deemed a failure in the usa could break world wide box office records,

the distribution model is prohibitive to an underground hit

xploder

xman,

You're usually spot on about a lot, but here you mixing a whole lot into process and confusing the issue. Theater owners themselves are a bigger factor then you think, they want a steady stream of customers, so release dates factor this in. Actors, studios avoid releasing movies with the same actor at the same time. Competition among similar movies. The run, how long is it expected to play. Advertising, word of mouth, bottom line for corporate money and so on. The reasons for releasing movies is complicated, very complicated and for good reason, they seek to make a profit. Consider that in reality, very few theatrical releases are done each year, as they are ungodly expensive to do, while, say for example tv, sees countless "releases." So some of your argument falls in the "tv" world and not so much the large studio movie world.

Now, using certain aspects of the entertainment business to generate laws that seem to defy logic, as well as the world we live in, that's another story. The music industry is worse in its attempts to strong arm people into pay the distribution scum instead of the artist. Download 10 songs and go to jail or pay 200k in damages - what world are people living in where that's reasonable?

That said, the real point you'll need to attack is why the entertainment industries as a whole are used as Trojan horses for legislation that turns people into criminals for acts that are hardly criminal. The acts are civil in nature a best, and, the punishment of said acts far exceeds the damages. You have long spoken about the criminal v civil side of "law" and one really needs to see how "hurting" a corporate fiction via an ill-defined damage figure is "criminal."

Let us have a look at two issues.

The High Court of Australia found that the Zoning or Region Coding was illegal under our Laws as it was a restraint of trade. The movie makers just ignored the ruling.

I bought a movie, may have been the first Star Wars. I bought a Betamax version. Betamax died and I had to purchase another copy in the other format. Due to a breakin that was stolen.

I purchased a DVD copy. Now I am supposed to purchase a Blu-ray copy and on and on it goes. Depending where in the world you live will it may be illegal to copy the DVD to your hard drive!

Let's face it. The big movie makers have always wanted to charge each of us every time we view a movie. That is their ultimate aim and has been for a very long time. They want to make it illegal for you to lend your copy to a friend and the current laws are heading that way.

From my perspective, if I buy a movie, it is mine and within reason (ie, public broadcasting) I can do what I want with it. It is mine!

P

Originally posted by XPLodER
a idea of artificial scarcity,
if the film was digitized, and not successful in america why not digitize it and release it world wide?
the film may prove profitable else where.

But thats not your original argument.

In your opening post you spoke of your dislike that movies were released at different times, and suggestions that the "speed of light" internet could get movies released worldwide at the same time.

In your original argument, the crappy movie gets inflicted on the whole world at the same time as the USA release.

But in your reply, you WANT staggered release dates for movies so the crappy movie gets a non-theatrical digital only release, AFTER the American audience numbers have been worked out.

You cant have both.

reply to post by XPLodER


Having been a general manager for a movie theater chain here in the US, I have sat in on meetings between managers, distributors, and Hollywood reps in regards to movie releases, bidding and marketing. I am going to give you a more detailed answer and then leave this thread because I have no interest in arguing downloading. If you want to justify theft be my guest.

the cost of filming in digital is significantly lower than film, causes less waste and is faster to edit.

I explained that not all theaters are digital and still use 35mm film and that needs to be shipped by air and obviously costs more than a quick digital transfer via the internet. Therefore it cost the companies MORE to deal with actual film instead of a digital product. Your response was to argue that digital is cheaper than film. I have no idea what is wrong with you.

are you saying people wont want to watch a movie because of the season? because most movies that are released are not specific to seasons

I explained that movies are released sometimes by season, at which point you argued I was saying people wont watch movies unless its summer. Blockbuster action movies are for the most part released in summer, why do you (northern hemisphere), why do you think that is? Kids out of school, people take vacations, good weather, ect = more movie goers. Why do you think Transformer movies are always released in summer between Memorial Day and Labor day? Children movies tend to come out around the holidays.

and those agreements are still decided as if we still used sailing ships to move film, we do not use ships today we have planes and the internet, but we still use "territory" release,

This argument has nothing to do with what I said. each country has its on rules, laws, and policies, look up NZ and find the answer for your situation.

money over frustrated film watchers, in the mean time pirated copies are on the internet, world wide releases would reduce piracy and lower watcher frustration.

OK I'm sorry you live in a remote location and can't see the next Batman when people in LA do, but geography is a fact of life.

i hope you can explain why i am being spyed on by my internet service provider, just in case i download a movie?

That has nothing to do with movie release dates, and frankly I don't care. Don't like it get a new provider. So you disguised a rant about arguing for illegal downloading and used the excuse that every movie YOU want to see isn't released in NZ at the very day it's released in the USA and I was dumb enough to fall for it and try and give you an honest answer. Congrats you got 15 mins of my time and 3 replies, and I learned never to read/post in your threads again. Goodbye

Most of this is more about "control" rather than making money.

Hollywood (one word by the way) wants ALL your Money.


The US (as well as other) Government(s) want control..


Hollywood pays for new laws (Because in the US of A Corporations are now "people")


Money now equals Votes, the more money you have the more votes you have..

I have been reading about all this on another website now for the last 4 years Before SOPA/PIPA/CISPA Ect..

we have 6 strikes here, but it's not "law" it's voluntary thru the ISP's..

My qestion is this, if Hollywood is making record numbers of profit how can the then complain of losing any monies to Piracy?

and when will Darth Vader get Paid???

I have always wondered why we couldn't get just the channels on cable that we wanted. They obviously have the technology to sell us a "Premium" channel. It has to be the bundling for profit motive. Now, I wonder how much they are trying to control the internet for profit and propaganda. It seems like it would be much more profitable to sell over the net, as Apple shows with music, so it may just be old executives holding on to old technology.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
xman,

You're usually spot on about a lot, but here you mixing a whole lot into process and confusing the issue. Theater owners themselves are a bigger factor then you think, they want a steady stream of customers, so release dates factor this in. Actors, studios avoid releasing movies with the same actor at the same time. Competition among similar movies. The run, how long is it expected to play. Advertising, word of mouth, bottom line for corporate money and so on. The reasons for releasing movies is complicated, very complicated and for good reason, they seek to make a profit. Consider that in reality, very few theatrical releases are done each year, as they are ungodly expensive to do, while, say for example tv, sees countless "releases." So some of your argument falls in the "tv" world and not so much the large studio movie world.

most of the TV is already digital, so you are right
but the film profit motives outcomes is bad for privacy competition and the rule of law.
i lose privacy so that people can be "caught" who pirate material. how does the actions of others lower my privacy?

Now, using certain aspects of the entertainment business to generate laws that seem to defy logic, as well as the world we live in, that's another story. The music industry is worse in its attempts to strong arm people into pay the distribution scum instead of the artist. Download 10 songs and go to jail or pay 200k in damages - what world are people living in where that's reasonable?

there is a principal in law called "proportionality"

Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several special (although related) concepts. The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Within municipal (domestic) law it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime

what crime is worthy of innocent people being spyed on by their ISP's for the actions of another person?
so i agree with you,
swatting someone over a civil crime (in nz copyright is a civil law)
or spying on someone for the actions of others is totally out of proportion to the perceived harm

That said, the real point you'll need to attack is why the entertainment industries as a whole are used as Trojan horses for legislation that turns people into criminals for acts that are hardly criminal. The acts are civil in nature a best, and, the punishment of said acts far exceeds the damages. You have long spoken about the criminal v civil side of "law" and one really needs to see how "hurting" a corporate fiction via an ill-defined damage figure is "criminal."

it could be argued that in fact under new zealand law copyright is nothing but a civil matter,
we would have to change statute to make it a criminal mater.
i see this as an extortion attempt, by a corporation,
to extort people into buying into the idea that lost sales are theft,
when these "lost sales" are reported as piracy losses and lower the tax bill of a film maker,
they are not deprived of any revenue.

no loss = no criminal case

xploder

Originally posted by pheonix358
Let us have a look at two issues.

The High Court of Australia found that the Zoning or Region Coding was illegal under our Laws as it was a restraint of trade. The movie makers just ignored the ruling.

people talk about free trade, but this is a proxy trade restriction on material that people have already payed for.
much worse that trade tarrifs

I bought a movie, may have been the first Star Wars. I bought a Betamax version. Betamax died and I had to purchase another copy in the other format. Due to a breakin that was stolen.

I purchased a DVD copy. Now I am supposed to purchase a Blu-ray copy and on and on it goes. Depending where in the world you live will it may be illegal to copy the DVD to your hard drive!

and if you move to another "territory" you might have to replace all of your movie collection (blueray) because your player dies and the only player available is a different reigion player.
ie you dont own your own property anymore

Let's face it. The big movie makers have always wanted to charge each of us every time we view a movie. That is their ultimate aim and has been for a very long time. They want to make it illegal for you to lend your copy to a friend and the current laws are heading that way.

if you pay for something it should be your property, how can someone lease property to you that you take ownership of? it mad that only one industry can screw you like this

From my perspective, if I buy a movie, it is mine and within reason (ie, public broadcasting) I can do what I want with it. It is mine!

P

i agree with you whole heartedly star for you opinions

xploder

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by XPLodER
a idea of artificial scarcity,
if the film was digitized, and not successful in america why not digitize it and release it world wide?
the film may prove profitable else where.

But thats not your original argument.

In your opening post you spoke of your dislike that movies were released at different times, and suggestions that the "speed of light" internet could get movies released worldwide at the same time.

In your original argument, the crappy movie gets inflicted on the whole world at the same time as the USA release.

But in your reply, you WANT staggered release dates for movies so the crappy movie gets a non-theatrical digital only release, AFTER the American audience numbers have been worked out.

You cant have both.

edit on 30-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

to be clear,
a world wide digital release would not inflict anyone who didnt want to watch the film into acually watching it,
because in real terms the price would be lower many more people may decide to watch it than if it were in a movie complex. because there is no artificial scarcity, and because the cost to distribute is bandwith,
the movie could rise or fall on its own merits,\not weather the first market makes enough money to enter the next.

many people i have talked to about piracy point out two things,

why is it not available on the internet world wide?
why is it not a reasonable price?

both of these issues would go a very large way in reducing piracy,
and in some cases would simply generate more money in scale from more views.

so why do i have to be spyed on by my ISP, so that hollywood can continue ignoring the internet?

xploder

Having been a general manager for a movie theater chain here in the US, I have sat in on meetings between managers, distributors, and Hollywood reps in regards to movie releases, bidding and marketing. I am going to give you a more detailed answer and then leave this thread because I have no interest in arguing downloading. If you want to justify theft be my guest.

i WANT to see a reasonable debate about what people are saying causes piracy,
i do not advocate piracy,
people i have talked to have asked WHY do film makers make it so difficult to get content in the manner they want it? at a reasonable time and price?

That has nothing to do with movie release dates, and frankly I don't care. Don't like it get a new provider. So you disguised a rant about arguing for illegal downloading and used the excuse that every movie YOU want to see isn't released in NZ at the very day it's released in the USA and I was dumb enough to fall for it and try and give you an honest answer. Congrats you got 15 mins of my time and 3 replies, and I learned never to read/post in your threads again. Goodbye

we cant get a new provider, it is now LAW in my country,
glad to here you can just change ISP's because we CANNOT

i am trying to address a problem that is causing harm to real people, that could be solved by the solutions people have asked me

ie
why is there no hollywood movie dot com sight?
why do they frustrate us and make us wait for content we know is released?
why are movies so expensive to see legitimately?

this thread is an attempt to get people to see that some of these questions have merit,
and solving them would go a great deal of the way to curbing the problem

thank you for you input and your answers, i will now have some answer to give back to the people i talked to before oping this thread

xploder

Originally posted by thedigirati
Most of this is more about "control" rather than making money.

Hollywood (one word by the way) wants ALL your Money.


The US (as well as other) Government(s) want control..


Hollywood pays for new laws (Because in the US of A Corporations are now "people")


Money now equals Votes, the more money you have the more votes you have..

I have been reading about all this on another website now for the last 4 years Before SOPA/PIPA/CISPA Ect..

we have 6 strikes here, but it's not "law" it's voluntary thru the ISP's..

My qestion is this, if Hollywood is making record numbers of profit how can the then complain of losing any monies to Piracy?

and when will Darth Vader get Paid???

i cant help but think you are right,
why should a foreign company get to spy on me for the actions of others?
its about control and i dont just mean having to buy a new copy of something everytime they update their platform

xploder

Originally posted by goldspirit
I have always wondered why we couldn't get just the channels on cable that we wanted. They obviously have the technology to sell us a "Premium" channel. It has to be the bundling for profit motive. Now, I wonder how much they are trying to control the internet for profit and propaganda. It seems like it would be much more profitable to sell over the net, as Apple shows with music, so it may just be old executives holding on to old technology.

they tried to kill the phonograph,
they tried to kill the cassette tape
they tryed to kill the video recorder

they are killing the net, and by action also killing privacy in a country in the south pacific

its obvious that the technology is available to offer movies over the internet,
problem is that would remove the need for draconian laws that benifit them

my privacy for their dollars

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Good discussion here XPLodER,

And some very good questions. The holly and the wood,
a very curious "place" and set of players, and rules.

They still play by old school rules, as it seems...
and they get away with it, so far. As I see it, its about
control, and influence. If they lose the influence, they have
less control, and less money for influence.

S&F