The Copyright Lobby has asked the British courts to block public access to a Sweden-based website, Newzbin2, which provides links to unauthorized copies of Hollywood films. The film industry claims it can’t survive without massive government censorship:
Spyro Markesinis, the vice president of legal affairs for Momentum Pictures, the distributor of The King’s Speech, said there were 75 different versions of the Colin Firth movie on Newzbin2.
“The survival of our business depends on the revenues we receive for our content,” he said. “Our recent film, The King’s Speech, is available on the Newzbin2 website without our consent. Neither we, nor the filmmakers, receive anything for this.
“Lost revenues not only threaten our business and our employees’ jobs but also mean we have less money to invest in new films, so the whole industry – and particularly the independent film business – is at risk. That’s why we fully support this action against Newzbin.”
“The King’s Speech” generated over $414 million in global box office receipts (off a reported production budget of just $15 million). And this was despite the existence of Newzbin and other “infringing” websites. It’s laughable to suggest these websites are threatening the survival of the film industry. (Incidentally, did Mr. Markesisnis pay any royalties to Queen Elizabeth II, as “The King’s Speech” makes use of her father’s name, image, and personal history?)
{ 13 comments }
I wouldn’t say it’s laughable. One could say newzbin makes the marginal movie fail instead of break even.
What is most telling is the argumentation, which focuses on “protect our revenue and jobs” as opposed to “protect our legitimate property from theft”.
That’s because they can’t. Imaginary Property isn’t legitimate property, and copying isn’t theft.
Then how are they going to make their money ?
People are copying, and they still made a lot of money. That won’t suddenly change if it becomes legal to do it, it’s not as though those who are willing and interested in copying aren’t already doing it.
Their profits or lack thereof are of no concern of mine.
If they can’t profit, they will stop creating movies, that is a big concern to me.
Plus, you did not answer the question. I asked you how they will make their money and you answered me that they will make money and that you are not concerned, this does not answer HOW.
You failed to answer the question.
How do all the quality web series remain profitable? Advertising and merchandise sales. What we’d see would be a dramatic decline in actor salaries, which make up the bulk of a film’s budget. Profitability will remain, we’ll just see the poor rich folks like Johnny Depp complain that they’re not getting $35 million for a film anymore.
I “failed” to answer the question because it is a nonsensical question.
Since Imaginary Property isn’t legitimate property, and copying isn’t theft, the onus is on the studio to figure out how to make a legitimate profit, not mine. It is none of the government’s business to protect their illegitimate business model by force.
The King’s Speech is one of my favorite movies. I went to see it at the movie theater about four times. When I love a movie, I go see it multiple times. Just like the movie fast and furious five, which I went to see four times as well.
But I never buy DVD’s, I don’t have a netflix account. I want to see movies at the theater.
Especially 3D movies are the best. I’ve seen Megamind three times at the theater and I’ve watched The Green Hornet six times. Once it’s no longer offered in theaters, I forget about the movie. I don’t watch movies on the TV either.
Oh, and I usually pig out on over-priced Diet Pepsi, candy, dairy products, cheese nacho all the way. I am what movie theaters would call an ideal customer. I usually avoid the crowd by attending the movie outside of normal hours, like in the afternoon, in the eavening on weekdays when it’s cheaper and sometimes I get the entire theater for myself and I can take a very relaxed position on the chair, as if I was a rich man who purchased all the tickets.
Even if they would copy all the movies in the world, I really enjoy seeing them at the theaters.
That may be the case for you but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Although they may seem the same on the surface, those different ways of enjoying the same movie are actually different products.
Watching the movie in a theater is a product. Buying the same thing on a DVD is another (They even differentiate the same movie in DVD’s with different cuts, with extra content and even in different packaging like box sets). Watching it on network TV is another. Buying it digitally and being able watch it across different platforms is another product.
Owners of the movie take the original content and bundle it differently and try to get as many different products as they can so they can reach the most possible consumers they can.
This is usually described as “milking the consumer” by the anti capitalist mentality but that is how the markets work. This way maximum number of people can be satisfied.
“That may be the case for you but it is irrelevant to the discussion. ”
On the contrary, it is very relevant. It goes on to show that movies make their money in the theaters. You cannot copy the experience of being at the theater watching a huge screen with loud surround sound.
“It’s laughable to suggest these websites are threatening the survival of the film industry.”
It is kind of tragic that libertarians are using the property owners failure to defend their rights based on ethics against them.
Yes theft may not threaten the survival of film industry but so what? So what, most supporters of copyright, which are the property owners and their agents, can not make an ethical argument about private property? Does that change the fact that issues about property an ethics issue?
No this just shows how the argument against private property is flawed.
Libertarians had to deal with Georgism in the past and they handled pretty well. They will handle Kinsellaism too but it seems not in the Mises Ins.
I don’t understand how this movie is loved so much. The story isn’t remarkable or inspiring. He doesn’t make any sacrifices, his duties are insignificant compared to the gains he gets as King. I wonder how this movie would have went if he wasn’t the King. Just some guy who needed speech therapy.
I think the key to the movie is simply to show a rich and powerful person, then get people to identify with them by giving the person flaws. This way people identify because they like to think they could be king also and how awesome it would be. Looks like an insanely good profit strategy. $15million to $415million? Unbelievable.
Comments on this entry are closed.