Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
As I said, there are some movies I want to see in the theater. For example, Iron Man 2 I wanted to see in the theater because I wanted the big screen, good sound system etc. But there are only a few of that type of movie each year that really inspire me to go to the theater. Just about every other movie I don't care about the big screen. For example, I just got Shutter Island in the mail today from Netflix. I have wanted to see it for a while, but I could have cared less about seeing it on the big screen.
There are always going to be event movies that will do well no matter if they have large numbers of downloads or not. The movies that benefit the most from a theatrical release are movies like The Hangover. This movie did a lot better than anyone thought it would at the box office. Because of this they sold a lot more DVDs, had a ton more pay-per-view buys and I'm sure they got a pretty handsome price to sell the rights to HBO and other TV/cable providers. Had they released it to all channels at once that very well may not have happened.
I have said all along that you get what you pay for. As you devalue content and treat it like it is filler or garbage to be used and tossed away at your whim, eventually you will get what you pay and chances are you won't like it.
|
if all oil companies who controlled gasoline decided to only sell super unlead the first week of the month, uleaded the second week and regualar the last 2 weeks they could jack the price up of the premium grades a lot more than normal
people who would be perfectly happy with regular gas in their car would be forced to pay $3/litre.
but that extra money would be an abuse of the monopoly.
When you point to the hangover and state that would not make the same amount of money if they let the mediums compete against each other fairly you are proving the point that i am making.
All that extra money, is from artifically extending the monopoly on content distribution to medium selection.
if the copyright holder liciences all the content to all the mediums at the same time
they get all the money still.
they just don't get revenue from forcing people to use a MEDIUM they don't want to use.
look back at every fair use
vcr = universal tried to force people to use a medium for timeshifting ( re runs)
mp3= sony tried to force people to use a medium for playing (CD)
the new medium was better, consumers prefered them because they had competitive advantages over the one that the copyright holder was attempting to force people to use.
The copyright holder made more money by forcing such a medium choice, but fair use invalid that act, because the copyright monopoly is only supposed to protect the income from the distribution of the content, and not the income generated by abusing that monopoly to make an inferior medium superior.
amazingly every single time that happened, more money was made by the content creators.