5 Minutes with Harold Feld: "Dear FCC: No Special Favors for Hollywood!"

[Watcher3223]

I bring all of this up because they're examples of how well Hollywood can work if they stop trying to play it safe in a foolish manner most of the time.

A big reason why they play it safe the fool's way is for the protection of their own egos; they won't acknowledge that they're hemorrhaging money due to their own inabilities to curb excessive costs and to take more creative risks.

It's Hollywood's current way of business that is failing, but they can't deal with it so piracy is the scapegoat.

[Watcher3223]

And, you don't necessarily need "marketable talent" to make a popular, profitable movie.

Case in point: "Star Wars." Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford were virtually nobodies in the business up until "Star Wars" was released in 1977.

And, "Star Wars" is another example of a film that, despite its limited budget, inventively and cleverly made the most of what it had at it's disposal along with having a story that was RIGHT.

The people made the movie great, not throwing money at it.

[Watcher3223]

And a good bit of WHY hundreds of millions are spent: actor and actress pay.

If you want to get "marketable talent," you are going to pay THROUGH THE NOSE on a pay or play deal.

Now, I understand WHY "pay or play" exists, but it seems like many ABUSE this deal to get more money than what the job really should pay for.

I mean, it's bad if 10% or more of your budget is used to pay for ONE principal actor and he gets the money whether or not the movie is finished and released.

[Watcher3223]

IMO, it's Hollywood's fault.

They're spending over $200 million for remakes, or as they might say a "modernizations," of existing movies, many of which didn't need remaking.

They also spend over $200 million for a sequel that jumps the shark with a rocket!

And they spend over $200 million for a movie based on an existing properties, such as comic books or video games.

How about taking risks towards producing good ORIGINAL movies while making these movies more cost effective to produce?

[Watcher3223]

Right now, what Hollywood is doing is basically treating normal moviegoers, who frankly are not the problem, as if they are THE problem.

It's been my opinion that it's bad business to treat your customers as if they're the enemy.

Furthermore, I think Hollywood is trying to find excuses for why their movies aren't as profitable as they were.

I can offer two reasons why:

1. Most movies today cost too much to make, which affects the bottom line.

2. Most movies made today aren't worth watching.

[Watcher3223]

What really contributes to piracy is dishonesty.

Let's face it, there will always be dishonest people clever enough to circumvent the "latest and greatest" protection scheme the entertainment industry can think of and proceed to pirate their wares. If media is disseminated in any way, even under so-called "secure" delivery forms, there will be ways to intercept and pirate it.

If Hollywood wants to stop piracy, they should stop making and distributing movies. That's really the only way.

[911truthseekers]

The Jews own it, and they control this shit, so you tell me! I have tons of evidence!

[XionXXXX]

Seems Hollywood and the MPAA like to use that "P" word all the time. Seriously, why can't they just say file sharing, or movie sharing?

Piracy makes it sound like I'm armed and dangerous and an intent to cause harm.

[frank1985au]

@XionXXXX: They say it for exactly the reason you say - shock value. In their mind, you are doing them harm. In fact they are doing themselves harm - by continually raising the bar, they're making the mistake of assuming that "pirates" will get frustrated and give up. The old saying of "nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool" apply here. Make it hard, they'll try harder. Make it pointless (see below) and they'll laugh at you when they break it. Simple as that.

[iamgreaser]

Why do they do this crap? Someone could just walk into a cinema with a hidden camera in their hat. People will be able to watch the movie anyway.

What would be more damaging to the movie industry other than just "piracy" would be a culture change: rebelling against consumerism, and just not watching most movies, only watching what would be truly informational or whatever.

[frank1985au]

You know what's really damaging to Hollywood's bottom line? All of the money they're throwing at defeating piracy.

Millions and millions of dollars get poured into anti-piracy measures every year and every time something new comes along, it's broken before they have a chance to sit back and pat themselves on the back for being so clever.

Piracy is like a cockroach - you can't stop it. No matter how hard you try, people are going to find a way to get your wares for free. Simple as that.

[CoderjoeIsTaken]

@frank1985au

Not just that, but anti-piracy measures are a fallacy. If it can be read, heard, run, or watched, it can be copied. Trying to encrypt something yet still have people able to decrypt it to use it is a silly, pointless endeavor. If you have the keys, you can decrypt it, and the keys have to be sent along so "legitimate" users can decrypt it for "legitimate" use.

Also, copying isn't always about getting it for free. It can be about format-shifting a DVD onto a media server.

[frank1985au]

Agreed. Australia has a law against breaking anti-piracy measures, but thanks to libdvdcss, I can use the anti-piracy measures to copy the movie anyway. Pointless is dumb.

Sometimes all it takes is for a hardware manufacturer to do something different and all of your protections are moot.  An audio CD played in my laptop shows a proprietary player, but my LG DVD burner gives me raw access. Nice work, guys. Blind assumptions are even dumber.

The hole's in their foot, yet they keep limping.