Box office revenue grew to $27 billion in 2007

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 10, 2008, 6:06 pm

Spang wrote:There's also a war going on. That might have something to do with all these declines in movie theater numbers.

Not to mention there's a recession in the U.S. and has been building up to a recession for some time. That kind of thing usually curtails entertainment spending. (and going to the movies sucks so that would be one of the first things to be trimmed from the budget)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 10, 2008, 6:35 pm

miir wrote:
If you take the period before miir's numbers (1992-2002) you only come out to a 6.8% average.
If you take the period after miir's numbers (2002-2007) you come out to a 0.8% average.

I'm well aware of the average. Point being? According to many articles I read the drop in 2005 was due to a whole bunch of shitty movies that year that nobody wanted to see. Explain the increased growth the following two years since that period. And while you're at it please explain the low numbers in the years 1992, 1995 and 2000. It sure the fuck wasn't due to illegal downloads. Face it.. Some years are simply better than others due to a myriad of factors such as the movies themselves, the economy, etc and really this is a pointless argument. People already have their positions on both sides and regardless of what you say you wont suddenly convince them that they are the ones who are wrong.

Anyway, still waiting on your data (source please) that shows average revenue increases of 8-10% the years prior to 2002. Not that I think it's really relevant but it would be nice to see.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 10, 2008, 7:25 pm

Anyway, still waiting on your data (source please) that shows average revenue increases of 8-10% the years prior to 2002. Not that I think it's really relevant but it would be nice to see.

You need to work on your reading comprehension....

7-10% would probably have been more accurate.
7 of those 10 years fell within or above that range.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 10, 2008, 7:45 pm

miir wrote:
Anyway, still waiting on your data (source please) that shows average revenue increases of 8-10% the years prior to 2002. Not that I think it's really relevant but it would be nice to see.
You need to work on your reading comprehension....

7-10% would probably have been more accurate.
7 of those 10 years fell within or above that range.

miir wrote:Before piracy became more widespread, we would see yearly increases in box office revenues from 8-10%

And I'm the one with the reading comprehension problem? Yeah because I comprehend what you wrote? If you were trying to say something else that's not my fault.

Again, I'm not even arguing against your point that piracy hurts sales. However I think you attributing any set of numbers solely to piracy is, to put it bluntly, wrong.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 10, 2008, 9:09 pm

Note the part I bolded in my quote.
I intentionally did not say average.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 10, 2008, 9:10 pm

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/mp ... e_students

I am interested to see the demogrphic breakdown. The college kids angle makes sense due to being very very poor and lazy.

Wish the internet was more viable for me in the early 90s.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 10, 2008, 9:14 pm

miir wrote:Note the part I bolded in my quote.
I intentionally did not say average.

It's still a meaningless and unfounded statistic, and you're still a toolbag.

I thought you were done with this thread?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 10, 2008, 9:15 pm

miir wrote:Note the part I bolded in my quote.
I intentionally did not say average.

Fine, that makes it even worse. I guess I was just trying to help you out by including 'averages' in that last post. Your original quote claimed a 8-10% yearly increase. Please provide data and sources to back that up because I haven't been able to find it.

Really you're just picking at nits here to avoid having to back up your claim. There is no hard data to back it up. I have no problem with what you happen to believe in but it seems you're simply basing your opion on what the MPAA happens to say.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 10, 2008, 10:14 pm

Guys,

My positions:

Piracy is theft.
Despite the above, piracy can be ethically and morally acceptable.
Many actions taken by the companies who run various entertainment industries are unethical, often worse than the behavior of those who pirate.
I don't presume to know what overall effect piracy has on the industries it touches.

Now, that said,

Everyone is disagreeing with Miir in this thread. That's fine. I don't have any particular connection to his positions (although I do love watching how self-righteous y'all get when it's your own behavior that's being criticized) but I have to defend him on a few basic points.

Miir is claiming that piracy has increased in volume in the past 5 or so years. This is part of a general narrative in which, as society becomes more familiar with technology, and as technology develops to make piracy easier, quicker, and more convenient, piracy increases. The fact that anybody here is arguing with this general narrative is stunning. The fact that everybody here seems to be arguing with this general narrative blows my fucking mind.

Now, I know that there's been some debate here about whether you need to be 'tech-savvy' to pirate. It's indisputable that you need SOME level of tech-savviness. What this specific threshold is may vary from person to person-- for instance, I might not be comfortable pirating until I knew the ins and outs of the system and was confident that I wouldn't be caught, while my neighbor might be happy to pirate as soon as he figured out what button to press. Nevertheless, every person on the planet needs to pass a certain threshold of knowledge before they can pirate. More and more people are passing this threshold every day. This means that every day, the pool of potential piraters grows.

Miir has also claimed that the growth of high-speed internet has made piracy more rampant. This also seems self-evident to me. Faster internet = easier piracy. There are plenty of people out there who would be happy to pirate a movie if it took 4 hours but not if it took a week. Those people will begin to pirate once their internet connection is fast enough to make doing so worthwhile. Other people will pirate regardless of the speed of their connection. For these folks, the increase in internet speed doesn't mean that they'll start pirating, it simply means that they'll pirate more content.

So the situation is: Every day that passes, the pool of potential piraters grows. Every day that passes, the ease of pirating increases. Are you guys really arguing that this situation hasn't led to an increase in piracy? That we hit our piracy threshold during the fucking napster era? Really?

Miir is making a totally reasonable argument which seems true when evaluated simply by common sense. VV's reaction is 'source it or I don't believe it!' I don't think he has any obligation to source it, given that nobody here has presented a coherent, reasonable argument for the opposite position. If all I've got to go on is:

- Side A makes a reasonable argument which seems intuitively correct
- Side B refuses to make any argument and instead says "SOURCES!!!"

I'm going to be on Side A until further developments.

Listen: The pro-piracy faction has a number of great arguments to oppose Miir's generalized anti-piracy position. But nobody is making them. Instead you're making arguments like "YOU SAID 8% AND IT'S ONLY 6.8%!!!!" When Miir responds "OK, but the contrasting figure is still 0.8%," you're making arguments like "YOU SAID 8% NEENER NEENER!" Hey, guess what-- 6.8 is still EIGHT AND A HALF TIMES greater than 0.8.

Seriously: Make the arguments about shitty movies. Make the arguments about recessions and wars. Make the points about the growth of the home theater market. I know that some of you have done so (moreso at the beginning of the thread), but those points have been overwhelmed by the sheer mass of worthless face-into-wall factual nitpicking.

I'm also aware that I'm addressing everyone-but-Miir as a collective, and that all of you are unique, and not all of you have done all of the things I'm complaining about, and many of you have done the things I want you to do, and all that. That's great. I'm not commenting on any particular person. I'm just amused that, as an argumentative matter, Miir is dominating this thread despite the fact that everyone else disagrees with him and he very well may be wrong.

While I'm here I may as well give credit to Fash for trying, at 1:22, to actually defend the 'piracy hasn't increased' position. I'm not at all convinced, but at least you were on topic.

Christ.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 10, 2008, 10:33 pm

Take a chill pill. miir is the one throwing out numbers and statistics. If he can't back them up he can shut the fuck up and not pull them out to begin with if he doesn't want them used in the conversation. "Holy fuck I'm just going to make up shit too. This is the internet it must be true!"

As I said I wasn't even arguing again his position. Again, I'm not saying piracy isn't happening. You'd have to have your head in the sand to think so. I simply find the constant bleating that the past 5 years have had less movie revnue growth than previous years due solely to piracy to be total horseshit.

If my postts haven't been reasonable and coherent I hate to see how you classify the rest of VV posts. You honesty see miir as "dominating this thread?" Wow. Sure I guess if pulling posts out of your ass is dominating we've all been pwned. I'm pretty much been non-flammatory in my responses and have simply been trying to get at the basis for miir's statistics. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Oh wait no I'm not.

Christ is right.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 10, 2008, 10:43 pm

Sueven wrote:
I'm also aware that I'm addressing everyone-but-Miir as a collective, and that all of you are unique, and not all of you have done all of the things I'm complaining about, and many of you have done the things I want you to do, and all that. That's great. I'm not commenting on any particular person. I'm just amused that, as an argumentative matter, Miir is dominating this thread despite the fact that everyone else disagrees with him and he very well may be wrong.

The valid arguments were made in the first few posts of the thread. It degenerated after that. I can't keep posting my viewpoint. It wasn't addressed and makes sense. I don't know where you're coming from making these claims that miir is the only one making an argument here. There were several points made that addressed why the movie industry may not be increasing its revenue at a greater percentage while several additional points were made concerning why piracy has helped sales, both specifically and speculatively. It looks like you appear to be the blind one here, being dazzled by a few numbers thrown your way without the entire picture to back them up, or sources...better remember the word, "sources" if you're still heading toward the law profession.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 12:50 am

Sueven wrote:Guys,

My positions:

Piracy is theft.

You can hold the position that Natalie Portman is the Tooth Fairy, that won't make it true. The rest of your gas-bag post is not worth reading after failing to grasp the only important distinction in the whole thread.

I can prove piracy is not theft in a way I think you can comprehend: No criminal charges have been sought by the MPAA or the RIAA. They do not report an alleged crime to the police. They sue people, privately, for copyright infringement. There is no police presence and no criminal record. Name a real crime that matches this scenario.

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » March 11, 2008, 3:27 am

Meh.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techp ... cted_x.htm

An Arizona university student is believed to be the first person in the country to be convicted of a crime under state laws for illegally downloading music and movies from the Internet, prosecutors and activists say.
University of Arizona student Parvin Dhaliwal pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit marks, or unauthorized copies of intellectual property.

Under an agreement with prosecutors, Dhaliwal was sentenced last month to a three-month deferred jail sentence, three years of probation, 200 hours of community service and a $5,400 fine. The judge in the case also ordered him to take a copyright class at the University of Arizona, which he attends, and to avoid file-sharing computer programs.

"Generally copyright is exclusively a federal matter," said Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology civil liberties group. "Up until this point, you just haven't seen states involved at all."

Federal investigators referred the case to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for prosecution because Dhaliwal was a minor when he committed the crime, said Krystal Garza, a spokeswoman for the office.

"His age was a big factor," she said. "If it went into federal court, it's a minimum of three months in jail up front."

Although Dhaliwal wasn't charged until he was 18, he was 17 when he committed the crime. Prosecutors charged him as an adult but kept it in state court to allow for a deferred sentence. Garza also said Dhaliwal had no prior criminal record.

The charge is a low-level felony but may be dropped to a misdemeanor once he completes probation, she said.

A call to Dhaliwal's attorney, James Martin, was not returned.

A man who identified himself as Dhaliwal's father, but refused to give his name, returned a message left Monday at Dhaliwal's parents' home. He said his son had made a mistake, and was trying to put the case behind him. The man declined to comment further.

Brad Buckles, executive vice president for anti-piracy at the Recording Industry Association of America, said estimates say Internet piracy has cost the industry up to $300 million a year in CD sales alone.

The FBI found illegal copies of music and movies on Dhaliwal's computer, including films that, at the time of the theft, were available only in theaters. They included "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Matrix Revolutions," "The Cat In The Hat," and "Mona Lisa Smile."

A federal task force that monitors the Internet caught on to the student and got a warrant, Garza said, adding that Dhaliwal was copying and selling the pirated material.

This was only the first link that came up on a google search.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 11, 2008, 4:04 am

Well, rightly or wrongly, the battle against widespread piracy is well and truly lost. Which is great for some of us, and makes others cry with sadness for Steven Spielberg and James Cameron. It takes all sorts I suppose.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 11, 2008, 4:20 am

Truecrypt!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 9:01 am

Spankes wrote:This was only the first link that came up on a google search.

Yeah that 'federal task force' was real successful apparently, they managed 1 conviction? lol. What was he charged with? Oh yeah, copyright infringement.

It doesn't change what I said... The industry does not seek individual prosecution, unless you count lobbying the government to do something they want to do anyways (increase their own power and spy on the internets)

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 11, 2008, 9:25 am

Sueven wrote:Everyone is disagreeing with Miir in this thread. That's fine. I don't have any particular connection to his positions (although I do love watching how self-righteous y'all get when it's your own behavior that's being criticized) but I have to defend him on a few basic points.

Miir is claiming that piracy has increased in volume in the past 5 or so years. This is part of a general narrative in which, as society becomes more familiar with technology, and as technology develops to make piracy easier, quicker, and more convenient, piracy increases. The fact that anybody here is arguing with this general narrative is stunning. The fact that everybody here seems to be arguing with this general narrative blows my fucking mind.

I don't think anyone was really arguing that at all. In fact, I don't see where anyone argues that. We are arguing that he is throwing numbers out of his ass to make a point. It's like winnow in his pac-10 vs big ten comparisons (they are NCAA football conferences, miir), he seems to use data that suits his argument. If you are going to throw around numbers and have them mean anything, then at least source them. Don't say that piracy has been mainstream, oh, about 5ish years or so to best suit your argument (notice how he picked the year after 2002 where revenues grew over 14%?!). It invalidates the entire argument.

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » March 11, 2008, 12:49 pm

Again, I used to pirate and have zero issues whether someone does or doesn't. I also don't care if the govenment has a good convition ratio. I don't mean to champion one cause or another but what you said was false.

Fash wrote:
Spankes wrote:This was only the first link that came up on a google search.
Yeah that 'federal task force' was real successful apparently, they managed 1 conviction? lol. What was he charged with? Oh yeah, copyright infringement.

It doesn't change what I said... The industry does not seek individual prosecution, unless you count lobbying the government to do something they want to do anyways (increase their own power and spy on the internets)

Yes, he was charged and convicted of a crime for piracy vie copyright infringment. Semantics mean nothing here. You said it wasn't a crime, it is. The fact that you used the same term (copywrite infringment) has nothing to do with it being a crime or not. You said you could prove it wasnt a crime because all cases were civil. The story I linked shows that not only are there federal laws (because they investigated and caught the kid), there are state laws (because they did filed the charges due to age). As far as I am concerned this proves that piracy and 'copywrite infringment' are legal, not moral, issues

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 1:44 pm

No, I said it wasn't theft. If someone stole something from you, wouldn't you go to the cops? Would you ever consider suing them in civil court over a stolen item?

I said that the MPAA and the RIAA do not report alleged crimes to the police, they sue. Name a real crime that matches this situation.

None of that excludes the feds from conducting their own task force on copyright infringement, which is not theft.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 11, 2008, 1:47 pm

I think it is your personal definition of a crime which seems to be the main issue throughout the thread.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 1:56 pm

Boogahz wrote:I think it is your personal definition of a crime which seems to be the main issue throughout the thread.

I know quite well what a crime is. Copyright Infringement is one of them, and I've never alluded to it not being a crime. It is not, however, theft. It's a very simple and very important distinction.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 11, 2008, 2:16 pm

The people who are being pissy about piracy surely have never broken any laws ever.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 11, 2008, 2:48 pm

Nick wrote:The people who are being pissy about piracy surely have never broken any laws ever.

I would bet that more than half of the people being accused of being pissy about piracy aren't.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 11, 2008, 3:08 pm

The fact that the RIAA files civil suits instead of referring the situations to law enforcement for criminal prosecution has nothing whatsoever to do with the status of piracy as theft or not, or a crime or not. Because the RIAA has Congress in their pocket, federal legislation exists approving outrageous civil penalties. The RIAA can simply send letters to an offender and settle for a few thousand dollars with virtually no expenses or hassles. Why the hell would they pass that up in order to pass off control to a law enforcement agency which has far more important priorities and will only be able to stick the culprit with a piddly theft charge anyway?

If the RIAA was passing thousands of names of known piraters do law enforcement agencies, do you seriously think that the agencies would do anything, regardless of whether or not piracy is theft? If you call the police and say "I saw a man jaywalking outside my apartment" or "I suspect that someone in the apartment complex next door is smoking marijuana," do you think that the police will do anything? What if you call thousands of times making similar frivolous complaints? No enforcement /= no crime.

So I happened to be looking through Georgia's statutes anyway, so I looked up 'theft.' Of course, there are a whole variety of different theft charges, but:

Theft by Taking wrote:A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.

So does this cover piracy? Who knows. It's probable that pirated content counts as 'property.' A prosecution might run into trouble on the 'with the intention of depriving him of the property' bit, but the prosecution very well might prevail on that point. Given that such prosecutions don't actually occur, there's no way to know. And then there are a bunch of other sorts of theft that it might fit into (theft by deception, theft by receiving stolen property, etc).

You live in Pennsylvania, right? I figured you might want to know the law in your own jurisdiction, so I looked that one up as well. Pennsylvania divides theft into theft of 'movable' and 'immovable' property. Piracy would fall into the 'immovable' category.

Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition wrote:A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers, or exercises unlawful control over, immovable property of another or any interest therein with intent to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.

Piracy seems to pretty clearly fit in here. In this one, the intent is not to 'deprive another,' it's to 'benefit himself.'

So is piracy theft? Well, in Georgia, maybe and maybe not. In Pennsylvania, almost certainly. Then there's another 48 states (plus territories and other jurisdictions) with different definitions of 'theft.' So the real answer is: The question is a meaningless exercise in semantics and any definitive answer is both impossible and irrelevant.

And I want to emphasize again: I'm cool with piracy. In my opinion, it's better than the immoral practices of entertainment companies, and is likely necessary to end those immoral practices.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 11, 2008, 3:19 pm

Zamtuk wrote:I don't think anyone was really arguing that at all. In fact, I don't see where anyone argues that.

Really?

Zamtuk wrote:source that claim or shut the fuck up.

The 'claim' you're responding to is:

Miir wrote:Piracy DID start to become more prevalent around 2002/2003. This coincided with the widespread availability of high-speed internet in north america.

And then you've got...

Nick wrote:I dunno about the rest of you but I've been downloading albums for nearly 15 years now...I don't know where the 5 year thing is coming from.

Which at least seems to be expressing general skepticism about the narrative

Fash wrote:High speed and torrents do not necessarily increase piracy...

Fash wrote:I'd love to see estimates on piracy, I just don't think there is any accurate way of reporting it, nor do I think it has increased in any significance over the past decade. Actually, since the Napster boom, it may have declined.

But, of course, just to confuse the shit out of everything:

Fash wrote:Piracy is at all time highs

wtf?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 4:07 pm

Sueven wrote:
Fash wrote:I'd love to see estimates on piracy, I just don't think there is any accurate way of reporting it, nor do I think it has increased in any significance over the past decade. Actually, since the Napster boom, it may have declined.
But, of course, just to confuse the shit out of everything:

Fash wrote:Piracy is at all time highs
wtf?

lol...that was assuming he's correct and piracy is at all time highs, still, so is revenue.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 11, 2008, 4:32 pm

But if YOU'RE correct, and piracy is in decline, and revenues are at all-time highs, then an increase in revenue is correlated with a decrease in piracy.

Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 4:37 pm

I said it might be in decline, from the napster boom... but that was like 9 years ago! It's not fair to correlate them because there are too many factors involved, and no hard data on piracy.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 11, 2008, 5:16 pm

Fash wrote:I said it might be in decline, from the napster boom... but that was like 9 years ago! It's not fair to correlate them because there are too many factors involved, and no hard data on piracy.

Then just admit you're talking out of your ass and shut the fuck up.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 5:17 pm

just like everyone else, bud.. just like everyone else.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 11, 2008, 5:49 pm

Sueven wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:I don't think anyone was really arguing that at all. In fact, I don't see where anyone argues that.
Really?

Zamtuk wrote:source that claim or shut the fuck up.
The 'claim' you're responding to is:

Miir wrote:Piracy DID start to become more prevalent around 2002/2003. This coincided with the widespread availability of high-speed internet in north america.

Correct, but you should see where the line gets hazy. I noted earlier that he decided to include that stat right after the 14 percent increase in revenue, which was 2002. If you change the year to 6 and average them out, it comes to be a 3.7 growth post-piracy boom to a 6.6 percent growth pre-piracy boom, all of a sudden it's not that big of a change. I think everyone agrees that piracy has boomed recently, but the year is not and probably cannot be sourced. So when you do make some bold claim about when it took place, it drastically alters the outcome. Imagine how much it would change again if you included 2001, which some people also view as the piracy jumpoff. All of a sudden the stats are equal and miir's argument is thrown out of the window. See where I am going with this?

miir · Post by **miir** » March 11, 2008, 6:21 pm

Imagine how much it would change again if you included 2001, which some people also view as the piracy jumpoff. All of a sudden the stats are equal and miir's argument is thrown out of the window.

But it wasn't 2001... or 2002.
Bit Torrent combined with broadband saturation came to the forefront in 2003.

Before that if a person wanted to download pirated movies they had to subscribe to a service (usenet) that not a not of people even knew existed... or you had to have a network of friends hosting files for download... or you could find it then in IRC... or you could take your chances on the plethora of warez sites and risk getting your pc infected with a virus.

All of these methods were intimidating to the average user and downright esoteric to an internet novice.

Bit Torrent revolutionized movie piracy/theft.

A couple of clicks to download and install a torrent client then you use your web browser to find the movies you want to download. Then a single click to start downloading.

A lot like like how Napster made music theft simple and easy for the masses.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 11, 2008, 6:28 pm

Bittorrents also took a bunch of spyware garbage out of the mix since you do not have to have a p2p client like limewire, imesh, etc... thin BT client and (somewhat) reliable torrents ftw!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 11, 2008, 8:15 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Correct, but you should see where the line gets hazy. I noted earlier that he decided to include that stat right after the 14 percent increase in revenue, which was 2002. If you change the year to 6 and average them out, it comes to be a 3.7 growth post-piracy boom to a 6.6 percent growth pre-piracy boom, all of a sudden it's not that big of a change. I think everyone agrees that piracy has boomed recently, but the year is not and probably cannot be sourced. So when you do make some bold claim about when it took place, it drastically alters the outcome. Imagine how much it would change again if you included 2001, which some people also view as the piracy jumpoff. All of a sudden the stats are equal and miir's argument is thrown out of the window. See where I am going with this?

Listen, I'm totally on board with your argument, but that's not the argument you made in the post I quoted. The argument you made was "source that claim or shut the fuck up." The only 'claim' he made was that piracy increased in 2002/2003 with the widespread availability of BT in combination with high-speed internet. That's the claim that you were asking him to source, presumably because you dispute it. Asking those with whom you're arguing to source claims with which you agree is pretty nonsensical.

The only other quoted text to which you directed your "source that claim or shut the fuck up" statement was:

miir wrote:Weather or not the decline in movie revenues and ticket sales is a coincidence or directly related is certainly up for discussion... but to claim that a marginal increase in revenue in 2007 is proof that piracy is helping the movie industry is right fucking loony

And calling that a 'claim' which requires 'sourcing' is pretty incoherent.

Anyway, this is why I made that initial asshole post... because arguments like the one you just made are right there waiting to be addressed, and nobody was addressing them.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 11, 2008, 8:33 pm

I'd feel honored if my work was pirated.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 12, 2008, 12:23 am

Sueven wrote:Listen, I'm totally on board with your argument, but that's not the argument you made in the post I quoted. The argument you made was "source that claim or shut the fuck up." The only 'claim' he made was that piracy increased in 2002/2003 with the widespread availability of BT in combination with high-speed internet. That's the claim that you were asking him to source, presumably because you dispute it. Asking those with whom you're arguing to source claims with which you agree is pretty nonsensical.

Yeah, it really wasn't about that second part of the quote. I wasn't asking him to source it so I could agree with it. If he gave me a source with a big 2003 stamped across it, I would have to agree with him on the stat side. However, he didn't source anything (hell, the stats I have been going off of Aslanna posted much later), and was pulling numbers out. To me, if you want to make a good argument, then source those numbers, throw a link, or something. I'm certainly not saying he is the type to make shit up like that, but if I'm on the opposing side of the argument I would like to know that I am refuting correct information.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 12, 2008, 12:18 pm

The 1940's had the highest movie attendance of any other decade. I can't source that, it's in a handout given to me in HUM 2810, last semester. You can't blame piracy for the steady decline during the following decades obviously. It's the television, and later the VCR, and pay-per-view. Plus, more competition for the entertainment dollar, such as sporting events.

Piracy factors into all this eventually, but I don't think it should take as much blame as it has.

Post by **Sylvus** » March 12, 2008, 12:30 pm

Is BitTorrent's popularity as widespread as you guys seem to think it is? I have to believe it had nowhere near the impact or widespread use of Napster. Napster was ubiquitous; I'm a big-time computer nerd and pirate and even I never torrented that much. Granted the newsgroups are a million times better, but even before I found the newsgroups I doubt I downloaded more than a couple dozen torrents (probably closer to a dozen). I think that some of you might be taking for granted your above-average computer knowledge and the community of like-minded people that you interact with on a regular basis (namely vv).

I know that the time period that I used BT was in 2003-2004. I often times found torrents to be slow to download (even with my high-speed) and I would often be disappointed with not enough seeds to finish a download. I know that it could be difficult to find good lists of torrents, particularly after suprnova closed down. I also know that the first time that I, and probably most of the people on this board, were introduced to BT was in February of '03 when kyoukan posted her BitTorrent message. Keep in mind that the community here adopts technology much sooner than your neighbor or your brother-in-law who never owned a computer until last year.

I say this only to point out my disagreement with the "piracy became widespread in 2002/2003" opinion. I think at that point you were still dealing with the people who had always been able to find what they were looking for, via whatever means. Hell, I remember downloading King's Quest V (or was it VI) via BBS in 1993. I will not disagree that piracy today is totally and completely more widespread than it used to be, I just don't think that it was until more like 2005 that it became "widespread". If that were the case, does that change any of the numbers that have been thrown around? I realize that 2005 was the biggest dip year, factors cited include shitty movies that year and must also include piracy becoming widespread. Could its rebound the next couple years signal something other than "piracy kills the movie industry"? I'm just guessing here that people could have tried piracy in '05 and not found it to be their cup of tea due to poorer visual quality/less extra features/legality/etc.; or it could be true that after an initial dip, piracy affected the market in other ways that have been mentioned in this thread, positively impacting the movie industry; or it could be related to something else entirely.

I guess my point is that the numbers, as they have been used in this thread, are good for nothing except speculation. And pure speculation from opposing viewpoints leads to nothing but pointless bickering. Taken by themselves, particularly without other historical information (for example: in the record revenue year of 2002 how many people were using BT or other p2p filesharing apps vs. in 2005, the record low revenue year (or whatever (yay nested parentheses))), the numbers don't mean a whole lot.

edit: here is the thread if you'd like historical reference

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 12, 2008, 3:15 pm

I just read Fash's thread on the top 20 record company screwups of all time. It was funny. I enjoyed it. One of the last lines in the article is:

Fash's Source wrote:Since Napster closed, “there’s been no decline in the rate of online piracy,” says Eric Garland of media analysts BigChampagne, who logged users of son-of-Napster peer-to-peer networks more than doubling between 2002 and 2007. And that figure doubles again if you count BitTorrent.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 12, 2008, 3:19 pm

*cough*

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 12, 2008, 3:45 pm

yep, 2002 changes those averages and kind of ruins your argument about piracy killing revenues.

*cough* indeed

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 12, 2008, 5:16 pm

I am glad everyone is keeping their gayness to one thread.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 12, 2008, 5:35 pm

Zamtuk wrote:yep, 2002 changes those averages and kind of ruins your argument about piracy killing revenues.

*cough* indeed

Are you mentally retarded?
I mean are you really that incapable of correlating the information that has been presented?

I never really knew you in EQ but I'm starting to understand now why everyone called you Zamtard.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 12, 2008, 5:56 pm

Cane wrote:I am glad everyone is keeping their gayness to one thread.

Welcome

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 12, 2008, 6:02 pm

Thanks Sueven!

Honestly though, it is an interesting topic, especially since there is polarization here...and then those of us who really are ambivalent aobut the whole thing.

What I would love to see is what actually are the most popular downloads/torrents for:

1. Movies
2. DVD Rips
3. TV Shows
4. Games
5. Apps
6. Music

And even subcategories for most popular movies, bands, etc being downloaded. Kind of an impossible stat breakdown unless there was a way to get the stats from the most popular sites/trackers.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 12, 2008, 6:41 pm

Demonoid.com getting shut down by the damn Canadians was a crippling blow to bit torrent.. It's much harder to find a decent torrent now, especially without worrying about viruses, etc. I just wish they would get their servers hosted outside of Canada so they could bring the site back up

I paid for the NIN cd because it was reasonably priced. If this happened more often I would be apt to pay more often (something I think you would be a trend throughout the "pirating" community). If something similar happened to this with DVD's you would most likely see similar results.

But the media corporations continue to try and have their cake and eat it too, even though it is becoming increasingly more obvious that they are going to have to back off if they ever want things to get better.

Edit: I wanted to mention that I place 100% of the blame for demonoid getting shut down on miir.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 13, 2008, 8:58 am

miir wrote:I never really knew you in EQ but I'm starting to understand now why everyone called you Zamtard.

Honestly, aside from you and maybe Kylere on this board, no one has called me that. But it doesn't surprise me to see you pulling statements out of your ass. You've become quite proficient at it. Zamfuck is a more common one I've heard though...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 13, 2008, 12:41 pm

Besides the whole OhioSU association, Zamtuk's ok.

If everyone was from Arizona, it wouldn't be as great as it is!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 13, 2008, 10:20 pm

hehe zamfuck, classic!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 17, 2008, 12:44 am

Speaking of figures, let's look at turnover v's what won best picture that year... (or there abouts, and other nominations)

2007 5.4% No Country for Old Men (Not seen yet)
2006 3.5% The Departed - This was a great movie (rented)
2005 -4.2% Crash (also Brokeback Mountain, Capote, big year for vanity pieces) - Watched none
2004 0.5% Million Dollar Baby (The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray) - I watched none of these in any way.
2003 -1.2% The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (I get the feeling that was in the last year's profits and caused the drop in 2003 figures, or if it's a change from previous year, LOTR2 just outsold LOTR3) - Paid for this one 2-3 times over
2002 14.1% Chicago - Also LOTR2, Gangs of New York, The Pianist (2/4 and paid for both, LOTR2 multiple times)
2001 8.8% A Beautiful Mind (LOTR1, Moulin Rouge) - Big films, lots of box office and/or DVD, paid for all these
2000 2.1% Gladiator (Erin Brokovich, Crouching Tiger)
1999 8.2% American Beauty (however I think Sixth Sense was responsible for a lot of this year's box office)
1998 8.8%
1997 6.9%
1996 10.4% Titanic (duh) Not that I've ever seen it
1995 1.6%
1994 5.9% I think Babe was in this year's takings....
1993 7.3% Schindler's List (In the Name of the Father, The Fugative, The Piano) - nuf said
1992 1.1%

In short, there is a massive clump just after LOTR3, when a big pile of shit was released at the theatres.

I don't care if piracy is legal or not, but similarly to the music industry, sales are MOST affected by releasing SHIT product, not if people like your product so much that they're willing to risk stealing it.

Not to mention, I can get any new release DVD on a Tuesday for $2, at better quality than most downloads, and I still rip half of them cause I can do that while I'm otherwise occupied and not have to sit through their fucking stupid anti piracy lectures (which you never have to see if you pirate, ummm ...)