For-Profit, Illegal Movie Download Sites Threaten MPAA 387
vossman77 writes that BitTorrent is no longer the MPAA's enemy number one. They are now more concerned about illicit, for-profit movie download sites. This reader adds, "Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers." "Movie fans downloading free pirated films are no longer Hollywood's worst nightmare, but that's only because of a newer menace: cheap, and equally illegal, subscription services. Foreign, often mob-run, businesses aggregate illegally obtained movies into 'cyberlockers.' Cyberlocker-based businesses operate from Russia, Ukraine, Colombia, Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere. ... Hollywood movies are made available via illegal for-profit sites within days of theatrical release, while the advent of global releasing now allows the proliferation of individual titles into an array of language dubs within the first month of a theatrical debut. ... When movies are released on DVD and Blu-ray disc, the sites upgrade the quality of video offered from camcorded images to pristine digital copies. 'Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites,' Huntsberry said. 'That's the irony.'"
No companies listed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No companies listed... (Score:5, Informative)
you mean like Hulu?
Hulu is broken - it does not work in most of the world. If it did, there would probably be fewer of the illegal download sites.
The illegal download sites probably try to work fine just about everywhere. Maybe China's Great Firewall can block them, but might not bother (perhaps just the politically undesirable movies).
Crime Pays (Score:2, Insightful)
Torrents higher quality and are better than legal downloads and are more useful since they don't have DRM.
Weed is better than alcohol because it doesn't leave you hung over.
Amphetamine is better than caffine because it takes much less to keep you awake and focus. And it's better to take speed as needed than every single day as it is usually prescribed.
The bottom line: the best things in life are illegal.
Re:Crime Pays (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot: Hookers are better than wives because you only have to pay when you get laid.
Re:Crime Pays (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Very simple solution then: buy the DVD then download the torrent. There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral or illegal about filesharing. There is a great deal wrong, immoral, and illegal about downloading something that someone deserves to be paid for and not paying them.
And really? Amphetamine is better than caffeine? I mean, I'm all for legalization of marijuana, but if you're going to try and defend crystal meth as a safe alternative to coffee, please take your support some place else.
Re: (Score:2)
Amphetamine is better than caffine because it takes much less to keep you awake and focus.
Worth mentioning though that it's often easier to find a trustworthy coffee maker than a trustworthy amphetamine dealer. Having said that, a questionable prescription to ritalin is probably just as safe if not safer than a Mr. Coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BB (at least here) has a terrible selection of movies. Try asking for "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring [imdb.com]" or any movie that doesn't come from Hollywood's crap factories*.
*Not to diss on all US movies, just the crappy ones
hunter hunted (Score:2)
Re:hunter hunted (oblig) (Score:3, Interesting)
In Soviet Russia, the government takes on the RIAA and MPAA!
Which is more or less what the article is saying, for a sufficiently cynical view of corruption and the current political situation over there...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hunter hunted (Score:5, Insightful)
But the public needs to know that with such pirated convenience comes the risk of... problems with spyware contamination are even more common.
Spyware contamination like XCP? [wikipedia.org] Sony Pictures is part of the MPAA, is it not? It looks to me like ANY RIAA/MPAA offering is just as dangerous whether you get it from the Russian Mafia or legally through the studios. In fact, the safest route is BitTorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be mobsters on mobsters action.
from the good-luck-shutting-those-down dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be the **AA vs Jammie, now it looks like the **AA vs the Mafia. Fighting somebody their own size, playing by their same rules, is probably something they won't enjoy.
Re:from the good-luck-shutting-those-down dept. (Score:5, Funny)
Good. Now it's MAFIAA vs. Mafia.
One can only hope... (Score:2)
... that they start putting contracts on each other, then in the end the world would be a better place without them both.
Contracts? The MAFIAA breaks them. (Score:4, Interesting)
that they start putting contracts on each other
At least the Mafia honors [wikipedia.org] such contracts, unlike the MAFIAA [wikipedia.org].
What it boils down to is ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The MPA already takes on the mob selling bootlegs in places like Hong Kong. I doubt they are going to be scared like you think.
uneven competition (Score:2)
illegal sites "for profit" sites will always have an advantage of lower price compared to whatever MPAA is ready to give up in markup in their hypothetical "legal" sites.
That and zillion of "free with ads that are not in the video itself" sites.
That does not mean though that MPAA should not do those sites, because those "legit" sites have an advantage of their users not having their asses randomly fried.
This is the Real Threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney vs. The Russkaya Mafiya (Score:3, Funny)
Now THAT is a movie I'd pay money to see.
-S
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the RIAA and MPAA seem to be more interested in punishing normal people than actual criminals.
It's easier and more lucrative overall.
No different from the "legit" studios (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal: You'll see once Hollywood accounting methods become better documented.
To be fair don't legit studios, you know.....make movies from time to time?
Perhaps my point missed you. I was questioning the legality of how the major movie studios divide up the earnings from the movies that they make. Please see this list of examples [wikipedia.org] of broken laws and contracts.
Re:No different from the "legit" studios (Score:5, Funny)
"legit" studios MAKE FUCKING MOVIES.
No, the porno studios make fucking movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds Me of AllOfMP3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure opened my eyes to the problem of global and local laws surrounding copyright that over reaching blankets like ACTA have tried to address. Basically people see file sharers being sued but they don't see these users being sued. So you get on newsbin or something where a service takes a small fee from you and basically makes itself the target for the lawsuit. You aren't buying a license for the media, you're buying insurance in case the RIAA/MPAA come down on the service you're using. If they do, you lose only the fractions of the cost you put in and the site owner takes the fall. That's raw capitalism for you!
Re:Reminds Me of AllOfMP3 (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, AllOfMP3 was offering to send money back to the artists, as required under the Russian broadcasting law it was operating under. Hence it should not be a surprise that the servers were in Russia. It is not clear that buying music from AllOfMP3 was amoral or illegal, IMO.
It was just RIAA which was refusing to accept the money, because RIAA though they were entitled to more money.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was just RIAA which was refusing to accept the money
ARE THEY RETARDED!?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, AllOfMP3 was offering to send money back to the artists, as required under the Russian broadcasting law it was operating under. Hence it should not be a surprise that the servers were in Russia. It is not clear that buying music from AllOfMP3 was amoral or illegal, IMO.
AllOfMP3 maintained that it can operate under existing Russian laws that are intended to cover radio broadcasts, which was always a rather dubious assertion. The fact that you don't see AllOfMP3 online anymore shows that its legality was, at best, not crystal clear.
Re:Reminds Me of AllOfMP3 (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It just shows it is hard to run a business when credit card companies cave in to pressure and refuse to do business with you. No money coming in == No business
Pay attention to the site names (Score:5, Funny)
If you are a subscriber to:
Sorny.com
UniblersalStudios.com
Fox.com
You are probably getting ripped off by the mob.
Nobody's going to pay... (Score:2)
They might for DVD quality, but then there's no incentive to get the movie early, since the DVD-quality copy isn't going to be available until months later.
Now, if the movie is DVD quality and "released within days" of theatrical release, then Hollywood has their own problem they need to sort out. It's not the "pirates" getting the new movie out there.
Someone on the inside is letting the DVD-quality copy out early. But the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having grown up overseas, in countries where the 'official' release was likely to never happen at all...
You seriously under-estimate the quality possible with a camcorder in movie theater. Sure, some were dim, unsteady, and with people walking in front of them. Others were absolutely pristine, and in full VHS quality. (DVDs weren't common yet. I assume they could get near-DVD quality these days if they want.) It was often hard to tell if a movie was legit or not.
(Of course, these were the movies rented
But this does actually cost them money (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I'm pretty neutral about people downloading movies for free. I don't think it does a lot of harm although the sense of entitlement a lot of downloaders have irritates me. These guys on the other hand, are directly profiting from someone else's work. Sure, the MPAA could compete pretty well if they dind't have to make the damn films in the first place.
This is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was intended to prevent. It's a system that has worked reasonably well for quite some time. I'm surprised there's so much sympathy for criminals.
Re:But this does actually cost them money (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was intended to prevent. It's a system that has worked reasonably well for quite some time.
This attitude here is how we got where we are today. Copyright law was intended to promote culture by creating a temporary artificial monopoly as an incentive to create new things, which would, after a short and reasonable time, become the property of the public. Notice how that term is no longer short and reasonable and how the only works newer than the 1920s to enter into public domain have been only done so by specific requests of the authors (and rarely, at that) and you'll notice exactly how the system is broken. Now, I'm not here to root for the pirates (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't root for them at least somewhat in general), but it's clear that the copyright owners refusing to adapt are a far larger problem than the pirates.
Re:But this does actually cost them money (Score:4, Informative)
Much closer to home: Craigslist (Score:2)
Every month I see some twit post an ad in the computers-and-tech section of my local Craigslist branch, advertising a disk drive or Flash media pre-loaded with hundreds or thousands of movies or MP3s, and in every instance the asking price is far more than the value of the media itself. Those people, too, are profiting from it; whether they are vacationing members of one of these shady foreign cartels I can't say.
Its funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its funny (Score:4, Interesting)
It's funny that it was the exact situation in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s. I remember it quite vividly. Suppose you wanted an up-to-date copy of Visual C++ and Windows DDK right around the time when Windows 95 came out. Good luck buying it from official channels -- you were quoted delivery times of months, and overheads in multiples of US prices. IOW: no legitimate way to get it in time allotted for your project. Going to the local pirate, you could get it in an afternoon.
Don't get mad RIAA/MPAA -- Get even instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Many do not think it is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
My uncle has a VERY large collection of movies he gets from one of those places. For whatever fee it is he pays per month he can get up to 10 a month and then a fee for everyone after that. They are fairly decent quality (cost more for the HD versions). He thinks it is legal since he is paying for it, the website is professional looking, and the cost/access rules are what he expects for a legit company.
Indeed, he was lamenting to me a few weeks ago about not being able to find a blue-ray player that also plays his DIVX's. He commented that as easy as it is to get them off the internet and as fast as they come out he didn't understand why all the players just didn't mostly move to that format. I, once again, explained that it was illegal and few companies are going to be going about making your illegal downloads work easier. He looked blankly at me and said "Oh" - it was about the 50'th time I've tried to explain it. It is amusing that he refuses any of the ones I download for free but will happily pay someone else for the same thing so "He knows he is legal". If something were to happen and he end up ripped off (I suspect that if they are getting ready to be shut down many would be all over some credit fraud) or something happen and him go to court he would be one of the ones perputally confused that such a nice company dd it too him. I suspect that letters would be written to movie studios and no amount of being told "It is *illegal*" will ever sink in to most.
Really, with as many people that *do* use them the MPAA ought to just bite the bullet and enter that market - were it legal I woud most likely pay the fee (I'm not about to give someplace pirating anything credit card or bank account numbers even if I were willing to pay for something I could get for free). My uncle (and those others I know that use these services) still go to the movies just as often, the MPAA is just missing out on the profit he is sending to an operation in another country that may or may not be legal there.
For myself *this* is the type of piracy they ought to go after. I have no sympathy whatsoever for selling copyrighted information that you do not have permission to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting story, and I do have to support your uncle in it.
We know better - we know the RIAA and MPAA and their peers do not offer download services. And thus that any download services must be illegal. But only for that roundabout reason we know that.
When you walk down to the video store in your local mall, and you buy a DVD there. What do you expect, legal or not? I would expect it's a legal copy, the real thing. Will you ever question it? I don't think so. The same for buying food stuffs: you buy lun
Just a thought (Score:2, Insightful)
You guys have to stop expecting free media! Sheesh. Have you ever watched a movie's entire credits? Its like a small city put that together. Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children. Media pirates are not Robin Hoods. Robin Hood only stole which was *wrongly* taken. All these people who make want is a liveable wage. Not eevry one involved is a mega star or executive.
The economy needs money to be exchanged, to flow. As long as you refuse to pay for
Re: (Score:2)
So how do they show them on tv?
I can get them cheap and basically DRM free in the stores. Is target selling pirated DVDs?
Re:Just a thought (Score:4, Funny)
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children
I'm not sure I want to be paying them if they plan on using it to eat their children!! ;)
Re:Just a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children.
DRM isn't going to keep those children from going hungry and naked. DRM did nothing to keep these cyberlockers from being set up. DRM isn't keeping movies off of any of the P2P networks. Nobody who pirates a film is affected by DRM because pirates distribute DRM-free versions of the media.
DRM isn't about preventing pirates from getting media for free. It's already proven to be an abysmal failure at that. It's about controlling what honest people can do with the media after they've purchased it.
Re: (Score:3)
I would actually argue the opposite: piracy exists because of DRM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem, though. If we stop fighting the DRM, they'll assume they've found one that works and we'll be stuck with it. That means you have to buy a copy on blu-ray for home, then another copy for your iPod, and another copy for the kids to watch in your huge SUV on trips, and yet another copy to play on your portable DVD player, etc...
If they just did away with the DRM and offered it in an open format (I don't mean Theora, I mean any format read/writable by the masses -- MPEG-2 works for this; ign
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers.
The problem with this: Why would the MPAA ever want to do that when they can still get away with charging ten times as much for DRM'd movies and just sue anyone who dissents into bankruptcy? They need incentive to change, and if it takes cyberlockers and other people getting paid to do it, then maybe they'll finally get their act together.
Better than the real thing (Score:5, Insightful)
'Sometimes these sites look better than the legitimate sites,' Huntsberry said. 'That's the irony.'
He’s so close to an epiphany that it’s almost painful.
Everything about them is better. Except, perhaps, the quality of the picture, but personally I won’t tolerate a really terrible picture anyway. I’ll just wait.
The lack of DRM is better. The lack of involuntary filler content (previews and menus and such) is better. The convenience of being able to fairly quickly get any full-length feature film and watch it in the privacy of your home is better. The price, of course, can’t be beat. And apparently in some cases the websites even look better than their legal counterparts. Admittedly, being illegal is worse, but only if you get caught.
To beat piracy, they’re going to have to make the legal offering better. That’s all there is to it. Apple was very successful with iTunes (well, once they got beyond the notion that 1 song from an 8-song album should cost 1/8 as much as the album). It appears that a lot of people think iTunes is better than illegally downloading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to stop selling a product and start selling a service.
The product, a digital file, has no value. It costs nothing to make. Therefore, if you attempt to compete by selling your zero-cost item for less money than the other guy, you're in a race towards free. If the other guy has no production costs of offset, you lose. And there's no extra value you can add to a digital file that can't also be copied for nothing.
The service, distributing digital files, has value. The act of aggregating, rec
Do these actually exist? (Score:4, Informative)
This just seems like PR to try to influence people to view those involved in illegal downloading as serious criminals.
Who would give their CC # to a questionable site? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who would give their CC # to a questionable sit (Score:5, Informative)
As these sites do not look questionable, why wouldn't they?
I mean, come on, it is not like the site is named "Illegal-movie-copies.com" nor does the "about us" page say "Proud subsidiary of the Russian mob."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, people STILL fall for 409 scams. You don't think they would fall for this when they fall for something that has been beaten to death in the media?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OTOH, the illegal sites are less likely to rootkit your computer than the legal ones!
Better bribes (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
This reader adds, "Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers."
Does anyone else feel the same way about such business model suggestions? "They know best because they're n that position" certainly isn't foolproof logic, but they definitely spend a lot more time and money and have a more realistic understanding of what impact pricing and distribution methods will have on revenue than know-nothings that always seem to recommend business practices that are in their best interest.
nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought, but maybe if the studios offered a low-cost, for-profit, legitimate download site without DRM, they could receive the profits at the expense of the cyberlockers
Nope. The illegitimate sites can always undercut the studios, as they don't have the expense of actually making the movies.
Finally, the MPAA attacks a proper target (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
this sounds interesting.
tell me more.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I do remember something about the US screwing over some small country recently so WIPO issued sanctions saying that they wouldn't be expected to enforce US copyright law in that country for a period of time. Essentially they have the approval of the international community to pirate whatever they want from the US and they don't have to pay licensing. It wasn't Argentina though.
Re:argentina ones are not Illegal as argentina fre (Score:4, Informative)
Antigua/Barbuda
http://games.slashdot.org/story/07/12/27/1514235/WTO-Awards-Caribbean-Country-Right-to-Ignore-US-Copyright [slashdot.org]
Re:argentina ones are not Illegal as argentina fre (Score:5, Informative)
It was the WTO doing the screwing not WIPO. The country is Antigua and it was about online gambling and a serious lack of knowledge on how the US government structure works.
And the ruling is only to the effect that the US can't create embargoes or trade sanctions against them because of pirating activity. It doesn't absolve them from individual lawsuits from the owners of the copyrighted materials as those treaties and protections from them are separate and complete by another organization altogether (WIPO as you already suggested). A company or person in Antigua can pirate something, then be arrested and criminally charged if they enter the US or any territory the US controls. Civil lawsuits can also be pursued against them if their pirating happens or extends to any US jurisdiction including other WIPO member states due to provisions in the wtc and wppt treaties.
Re:argentina ones are not Illegal as argentina fre (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah... that would be Antigua [boingboing.net], not Argentina.
Re:why would anyone BUY an illegal copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point is to get a product you want for a price you'll pay.
If the official marketplace doesn't deliver, a black market forms.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod +1, Ironic
Re:why would anyone BUY an illegal copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How is babby formed? How girl get pragnant?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. If the point was not to pay for something, the solution would be to not buy it. So-called piracy is what other people call sharing useful information. Of course people are willing to pay for useful information, if it's offered in a sane way. That just hasn't been happening much lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? That's not the definition of theft, so they're simply wrong.
Sorry, you don't get to call other people dishonest because you disagree with their beliefs. I stopped reading at this point.
Re:why would anyone BUY an illegal copy? (Score:5, Informative)
Your so-called "so-called piracy" is what other people call theft.
And they are incorrect. Call it copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Unquestionably.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the .mp3, but the content creator still has the .mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
No, it's because theft takes something from another's possession and denies them use of it, while copyright infringement does not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is there always some shill who has to "correct" the record, as if it matters?
Because it is an important distinction.
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Yep. If you steal something you deprive the owner of the original. With copyright infringement the owner loses nothing. You wouldn't steal a car (I assume) but if you could make an exact duplicate for next to nothing and the owner gets to keep their car then most people would agree it's not as bad.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the .mp3, but the content creator still has the .mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
Kind of. Not that people don't want to be associated with gang-bangers but that it IS less of a crime. If someone broke into your house and stole your TV you'd be pretty piss
Re:why would anyone BUY an illegal copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
People now understand that pressing copy of a DVD could sell for $10 rather than $20-30 and still make a profit for the producer. People also know that extra digital copies can be made at virtually zero cost to the producer...yet the industry still insists on charging you $30 for that product.
People also understand that their is no longer a scarcity of these works of art. Why pay such a high price to watch a blockbuster movie when its plot line has been recycled in other films 13 times last summer?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why would anyone BUY an illegal copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, go ahead and buy from the MPAA. Do you really think that any of your money makes it to the people who wrote, directed and produced the content?
As reprehensible as I think Hollywood's accounting/royalty practices are, they don't negate the fact that if the studios weren't making money, they wouldn't have hired the film/TV crews who made the content in the first place. The money that's spent by consumers on today's content is what ends up being used (in part) to pay the people who are working on tomorrow'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or they could just think the site is legit. I am guilty of running one of these sites back in '05 (iptelev.com). I could remember the flood of DMCA notices I would get every week. Although, I had a credo: Any movie in theaters in the US, UK, AU, FR, SP, JP, or HK won't be in the library. Basically, if it's not on DVD, you won't find it at my site. A lot of my customers were users of other sites (SaltWaterChimp.com for example) that streamed television shows on the Shoutcast channels. I did try to broker a d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the keyword here is "service". No more "seed plz, fuckers", no more hunting for best quality, all in one place and perhaps other good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what the pirates do is download the DRM-free copy and then "share" it as being the DRM-free copy from the service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you think making things quicker and easier for the pirates will get the MPAA a slice of the profits? I don't think so, and more importantly, the MPAA doesn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at this from a game theoretical perspective (yeah, I'm one of those). The MPAA moves first and they can either sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format or not. If they do not, they get no profit from it and then the pirates get the option to put the movie on file sharing sites or not. We have proven that they will by the fact that this is the state we're in. Now, say the MPAA does sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format online. They start making money from this (I know I'd certainly
Re: (Score:2)
I do not share any sympathy with people or organisations which sell (!) copyrighted material. So what ever the RIAA/MPAA does against this organised distribution channels is fine with me.
However: I do not feel pity for the RIAA/MPAA. Their rude, unthoughtful ... nearly criminal way of treating people makes it impossible for me to feel any sympathy for them. So MAFIAA, enjoy your fight against the real Mafia, I guess there you found a proper opponent!
Where is the popcorn?! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me simplify it, irony is "the opposite of what you expect". An ironic situation (as this one is) is one where you would expect the legitimate content publishers to be the ones creating convincing, effective distribution methods but it is instead those that steal the content that produce the most compelling distribution methods.
That's what irony means. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you must be a lot of fun at parties. Are you Lewis Carroll's ghost? You make a convincing opium addict, I will give you that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every consumer always picks the lowest cost, that's what they call the "market". The studios business model concerns greed, that's all. A successful movie recovers the investment in the first week at the theaters, everything after that is profit.
The problem with the studios is called "Hollywood ac [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"That's right. I am wishing death upon those that dare pursue a career with the MPAA or RIAA. About the only people lower than you are the kiddie porn peddlers."
The two vocations are not mutually exclusive.