Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
i corrected it
you were trying to argue that even though ever single tv show that currently airs on tv never established an audience baseline in the theaters (all of which were paid for by the stations btw)
it somehow impossible for the same methodology to be use for movies.
|
A TV show and a movie are two different things. Often TV shows are developed and tested by the same networks that air them. They can create one cheap pilot episode and see how it does. If it does well then they can go ahead and make an entire season of shows.
I suppose they could guess how much to pay for a movie, but you know that would break down really fast. As soon as there was a hit movie that made a lot of money any movie like that that followed would want a lot more money for licensing and since there was no way of knowing if that new movie was going to be a hit or a flop, it would require the studios to take a much larger risk and pay the higher price to get it. Plus, if it is a rated R movie they now also have the disadvantage of competing against the unedited version of it. Hell, it's fair use after all right? We want access shifting. I want to watch The Hangover, but I can't get to the theater and I don't want to rent the DVD or pay for a pay-per-view so I will watch it on NBC. What? NBC is editing and making it rated PG? I don't want that. I want it how I want it when I want it and since that is not available I will just download it for free.
Quote:
i was including concessions in that price point
it was a research report, that stated that number they used
remember that each technological advancement in components spures other industry and technologies
mp3 commercialized solid state disk, reducing the price of solid state disk from $5/mb to $5/gb
creating trillions of dollars worth of new technology, cell phones, pda, game machines etc all would not exist in their current form if solid state disk had not been commercialized.
your obviously ignoring all of that technological advancement.
but for the sake of arguement let ignore all of that
say you only uses the hard statistics from the vcr days , the jobs created within the country for the sale of hard goods
at the time 5 jobs were created selling vcr for every job lost making content.
And here is the key
vcr created a new sales channel for th content
movies that were only sold in the theaters were sold on video cassette
|
I would assume the fact that home computers went from being something only a few people had to something that was very commonplace in people's homes had a lot to do with the price reductions of storage devices. Everything has dropped in price, not just hard drives.
Quote:
only if your a world class moron who doesn't realize that each new medium provides another sales channel
fact
when people upgrade their vcr to dvd players they rebought their favorite movies
they did the same thing when they upgraded to blue ray.
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bl.../dp/B000Y9Q59W
wall street a movie released originally on video cassette is being sold on blue ray
if your arguement had any validity then the sales of such a release would have to be zero.
|
You make a decent point here. However, this still doesn't prove that releasing your movie in every medium on the day it comes out will help improve your earnings. As a matter of fact the one movie that tried to release on DVD, pay-per-view and theater at the same time was a flop.
Quote:
ok say the number is totally wrong
let say it only as good as history has already proven
use the old vcr numbers 5 jobs were gained for every job that was claimed to be lost
none of those jobs were actually lost because studios started selling the movies to the people that bought the vcr (creating the greatest revenue greater than all other sources combined)
|
Still, 60/trillion per year? Doubtful. It will create some jobs, but we can't know how many. You are pulling numbers out your ass.
[/QUOTE]do you want to produce a single piece of proof that this is happening.
just one documented record that proves that capital investment in movie production has decreased.
movie budgets have grown year after year, actors salaries have grown
profits are up, more movies are being release[/QUOTE]
According to Box Office Mojo
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ Here are some numbers
2008- 607 movies released.
2009 - 521 movies released
2010 - on pace for around 450, but there might be closer to 500 with the big influx of summer movies.
I might just be a world class moron and all, but that seems like fewer movies are being made. Add in the fact that Paramount just started a new division where they will produce 10 movies per year with a budget of 100K each. They are searching for diamonds in the rough and trying to reduce costs.
Another good example would be some newspapers. There are newspapers going out of business all the time. People are starting to get their news online. In your world I would get online and check the headlines out on CNN.com or whatever news site I like, but then I would "upgrade" to the premium experience and pay my 35 cents for a local newspaper so I can read more local news, op/ed, columns etc., but that isn't happening. Just the opposite is happening. There is enough new for free online now that many people have turned away from the paper all together. It turns out that free is good enough, no need to actually pay for something.
Quote:
if your going to ignore all the spawned technologies that could exist by the commercialization of component technologies (ie all the industries/consumer devices that were created because solid state disk dropped from 5/mb to 5/gb) then yes it would be hard to see how it would be that great.
for the sake of arguement let just pretend none of that exists.
physical goods have massive LOCAL job creation in the support of those items
the vcr created 5 jobs for every job "suspected" of being lost
every dollar "suspected" of being lost was replaced with even more money when the platform was embraced.
So none of those so called losses actually ever existed.
|
Please post some proof that the VCR created 5 jobs for every job that was "suspected" to have been lost.
Quote:
fact physical goods provide for the local economy
when your dvr/pvr breaks you don't ship it all the way to china to get fixed you get it fixed at the local level
fact content production and editing is continually being outsourced to cheap labor countries.
even if the income loss balanced out perfectly protecting fair use would be good for a countries economy.
Fact the vcr historical records proved for every one job projected to be lost in entertainment industry 5 jobs were created
common sense supporting a physcial good creates more jobs than supporting a digital one.
how many people do you think it takes to "deliver" a bunch of streamed content.
how many people does it take to "deliver" a pallet lot of pvr/vcr etc.
so this arguement basically comes down, because of a potential loss that only occurs for a small group of entertainment we should destroy all the jobs that would be created.
jobs that history has repeatedly proven have been created every time we have had this dispute
for "Suspected" income losses, and a dooms day senerio that has never happened even though it has been predicted time and time again.
i have a simple question
why should we believe that this dooms day senerio will happen this time given the fact that every previous time it has been predicted it never happened.
|
In reality if your DVD player dies you throw it out and buy a new one. Only if it is something that is more expensive like a TV to you actually bother to get it fixed.
I never started this whole thing as an argument over who created more jobs. My point has always been that content producers should be allowed to control the distribution of their content and you disagree with that. You think that if they choose to distribute it in any way they should be forced to make it available to everyone in every medium at the same time and if not then you should be allowed to download it at will. We will never agree on this so really there is no use in continuing this argument.
On one other note I also think you are way off in thinking that eventually "fair use" laws will change in the way you want them. Almost all of the verdicts in cases and judgments made go against torrents, downloading and downloaders. Major torrent sites like Pirate Bay and Isohunt are hanging on by a string. If for no other reason, I say this because the big companies that make all this content have our lawmakers in their pockets. I think their will be law changes, but I think they will go just the opposite way you think they will.