David Levine and Michele Boldrin: Economical analysys of MPAA ads

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher

I agree it's a piece of pop-culture bull**** with idiots as its fanbase, but so is Titanic and Buffy.

Da Vinci Code was supposed to be intelligent and original, and it's neither. That's my point. It is pretentious because it tries to be clever, but it's not.

Maybe some people here need to understand what's being said before replying.

JohnT...

No, it wasn't. The Da Vinci Code is a ripoff on that stupid Bible Code concept and attracts the very same people.

You know, unlike others on this board, I really don't give a **** whether you like the Arts or not. However, it might behoove you to speak more about subjects you have an aptitude for, and leave the others to us.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ming
It costs money to make and distribute a film... While I might agree with you on just an "idea"... a movie isn't just an idea.

A movie is simply an intricate string of ideas.

[KrazyHorse]

1s and 0s are just 1s and 0s...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm just saying it cracks me up that you are moaning about the lack of "adult" entertainment when you're notoriously a Buffy and Titanic fanatic.

You're clearly part of the problem...

No, what you're saying is that if you don't like it, it's beneath you. You say that about everything that you're second-best in. It's why you're one of the biggest cowards on this board.

[asleepathewheel]

I'll post this here, even though its related (obviously) more to music sharing than movies.:

I Jeff Tweedy

NYTimes: Exploring the Right to Share, Mix and Burn
April 9, 2005

Exploring the Right to Share, Mix and Burn
By DAVID CARR


he tickets for the event Thursday sold out in five minutes on the Internet, and on the evening itself the lines stretched down the block. The reverent young fans might as well have been holding cellphones aloft as totems of their fealty.

Then again, this was the New York Public Library, a place of very high ceilings and even higher cultural aspirations, so the rock concert vibe created some dissonance. Inside, things became clearer as two high priests of very different tribes came together to address the question of "Who Owns Culture?" - a discussion of digital file-sharing sponsored by Wired magazine, part of a library series called "Live From the NYPL."

Both Jeff Tweedy, the leader of the fervently followed rock band Wilco, and Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor who has opposed criminalizing file sharing, seemed to agree that just about anybody who owns a modem also owns - or at least has every right to download - culture products.

"I don't think anybody should make any money on music," Mr. Tweedy said at one point, only half joking. "Maybe we would pay audiences."

It is a curious sight when a rock star appears before his flock and suggests they take his work without paying for it, and even encourages them to. Mr. Tweedy, who has never been much for rock convention, became a convert to Internet peer-to-peer sharing of music files in 2001, after his band was dropped from its label on the cusp of a tour. Initially, the news left Wilco at the sum end of the standard rock equation: no record/no tour, no tour/no money, no money/no band. But Mr. Tweedy released "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" for streaming on the band's Web site, and fans responded in droves. Wilco then took on the expenses of its tour as a band.

The resulting concerts were a huge success: Mr. Tweedy remembered watching in wonder as fans sang along with music that did not exist in CD form. Then something really funny happened. Nonesuch Records decided to release the actual plastic artifact in 2002. And where the band's previous album, "Summerteeth," sold 20,000 in its first week according to SoundScan, "Yankee" sold 57,000 copies in its first week and went on to sell more than 500,000. Downloading, at least for Wilco, created rather than diminished the appetite for the corporeal version of the work.

Both Mr. Tweedy and Mr. Lessig used their talk to say that the Web, in an age where conglomerated FM radio has squeezed out virtually all possibility of hearing anything worthy and new, is where fans are best exposed to music they might want to buy. And during the presentation (which was streamed live on Wilco's Web site), Mr. Lessig added that the decision to outlaw downloading would have a profoundly inhibiting effect on the creation of culture. He said that in every instance, from the player piano to radio to VCR's to cable, the law had landed on the side of the alleged "pirates," allowing for the copying or broadcasting of cultural works for private consumption. Thus far, both the music industry and the film industry has succeeded in making it illegal for consumers to download their products .

Mr. Lessig said that "the freedom to remix, not just words, but culture" was critical in the development of unforeseen works of art. He pointed to "The Grey Album," produced by the D.J. Danger Mouse, a remix of the Beatles' "White Album" and Jay-Z's "Black Album" that resulted in a wholly new and unexpected piece of music.

"What does it say about our democracy when ordinary behavior is deemed criminal?" he asked. Mr. Lessig and the moderator, Steven Johnson, a contributing editor at Wired, made much of the fact that the discussion was taking place in a library, where much of the Western cultural canon is available free.

Mr. Tweedy has little sympathy for artists who complain about downloading. "To me, the only people who are complaining are people who are so rich they never deserve to be paid again," he said.

Mr. Lessig, one of the philosopher kings of Internet law, and Mr. Tweedy, the crown prince of indie music, traded places more than a few times during the presentation, with Mr. Lessig, who has argued copyright cases before the United States Supreme Court, enthusiastic about the artistic possibilities the Web engenders, and Mr. Tweedy making sapient pronouncements on the theoretical underpinnings of ownership.

"Once you create something, it doesn't exist in the consciousness of the creator," Mr. Tweedy said, telling the audience that they had an investment in a song just by the act of listening. Later, at a dinner at Lever House, Mr. Tweedy suggested that downloading was an act of rightful "civil disobedience."

All of it - high and low culture, Supreme Court rulings and mashed-up video clips ridiculing the president - was eagerly lapped up by the audience, which included musicians like David Byrne and D.J. Spooky, along with a throng of fans who would show up to hear Mr. Tweedy read from a digital phone directory.

Afterward, Alex Sherwin, a 36-year-old graphic designer, said, "It would have been better with a guitar, but I still enjoyed hearing what he had to say." Mr. Sherwin said his favorite CD was a live Jeff Tweedy performance in Chicago, one that had been recorded and distributed with the artist's happy assent.

Posted: Sat - April 9, 2005 at 02:59 PM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
This is such bull**** I am ashamed that you brought it in here as a serious argument, muxec.

He does have a history of posting really weird, stupid articles...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ming
I have no problem if people feel it's their right to cheat others out of money by stealing what they have created... it's the justifications that are laughable...
It's still theft. Just because you can steal it easily, and with little fear of getting caught doesn't make it legal or right.

And I suppose you feel it is theft or "stealing" if you don't watch all of the commercials on a TV program! I've noticed you've made similiar arguments about users on this site who use pop up blockers.

Like poly, the recording companies are just going to have to accept reality and adapt because this technology isn't going away. There are still many ways to make a buck in the industry but the days of the $20 CD and $50 movie are over. Whine to your hearts content but that is simply reality.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
The lost revenue comes from lost rentals, from when the movie is released on DVD, VHS. If you're not paying $10.40 at the theater to see Action Asher, then you might be willing to pay $4.00 to see it at Blockbuster. Or pay ~$30 for HBO. Or watch it on commercial TV.

Neither of these cause any damage to MPAA profits, thus you are moving the goal post.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
Everybody involved makes less money... not just the middle man.

This is a myth perpetuated by the large associations (MPAA, RIAA) but has no basis in facts.

Last year, some researchers from Harvard and UNC did a study on downloading's effects on music sales (PDF file). Their finding: no relation.

Here's another study on downloading vs sales.

I hate it when these organisations keep repeating the same lies, even when they were refuted repeatedly.

[Dinner]

Like Bush they know that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Or at least the gullible believe it is the truth.

[Urban Ranger]

I am not saying downloading is ethical and/or legal. I am just annoyed by their antics. Big bad bullies.

[Ming]

Gee... they don't like it when people STEAL their product... imagine that... but they are the big bad bullies... What would you do if people were ripping you off... just ignore it?

And again... the fact that selected studies might indicate that it might not effect sales doesn't change the fact that it's still theft

Maybe they are the ones that have the right to be annoyed by all the theft... It's funny that thieves might be annoyed because the industry is trying to do things to protect themselves...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ming
Gee... they don't like it when people STEAL their product... imagine that... but they are the big bad bullies... What would you do if people were ripping you off... just ignore it?

And again... the fact that selected studies might indicate that it might not effect sales doesn't change the fact that it's still theft

You believe that the RIAA/MPAA are in for moral reasons? (i.e. "theft is bad, let's fight it")?

They're in for money, as they think the downloaders can affect the money they make. If they expected their legal actions not to have any effect on their monies, they wouldn't throw their antics, regardless of what's "moral" or not.

[asleepathewheel]

If someone wants to be paid for their labor, then what justifies the use of their product without remuneration? Don't you want to be paid for your work?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
If someone wants to be paid for their labor, then what justifies the use of their product without remuneration? Don't you want to be paid for your work?

Actually, I really don't see the MPAA/RIAA behaviour to be any guided by morals or emotions, but only guided by numbers (it's disputed whether they're hard numbers or fantasized numbers).

When the RIAA guys engage a multi-million dollar campaign, that considerably hurts their image, and whose results are uncertain, they're not doing this because they think "thieves are bad, let's punish them" (they may think it, but the moral standing doesn't suffice to do something as costly and risky).
They do this because they expect to get money from the buck they invested in their anti-filesharing campaign.

The behaviour you describe is the behaviour of an old-fashioned peasant running after a kid who stole an apple. It's emotional, but it's not necessarily productive. It's not the behaviour of professional execs engaging in a risky multi-million campaign.