Spiritus, I am not trying to justify pirating. I’m just saying that they have a solution available and no one has to get arrested, commit crimes, or lose money (except, in fact, the pirates). If they have intentions to release to these markets anyway, then they simply need to adjust their business model. If they have no intentions of releasing to these markets, then they aren’t losing any money.
I appreciate the comment about domestic releases piquing the interest of foreign ones. But given testimony in this thread I think that is not really the issue surrounding our super-pirates. Obviously the interest is there already or there would be no pirating.
Of course they are under no obligation to release it at all. Recognizing that fact isn’t going to stop pirating. Of course pirating is immoral. That doesn’t seem to be stopping priating. Of course pirating is illegal. That doesn’t seem to be stopping pirating.
The solution to this problem is an obvious one; simply sit in front of the bootlegger whilst wearing a tall hat, sit beside them unwrapping boiled sweets or take a five-year-old with you and encourage him/her to ask questions at any point.
Again, I’m staying away from the dispute over intellectual property (like rjung, I can’t believe how theft is being rationalized), but I’m offering some additional facts on certain topics to counter the rampant speculation. Specifically, regarding why it takes so long for Hollywood to release its movies overseas.
As some have surmised, it’s a huge pain in the ass. To wit:[list=1][]The movies have to be dubbed and/or subtitled. This is harder than it would seem, particularly for comedies where the idiom doesn’t translate. You can’t just babelfish the dialogue; otherwise you get ludicrous phrasings like those so common in Hong Kong subtitles (humorous sample). The dialogue has to be carefully rewritten by a fluent speaker if it’s to seem natural, let alone not laughable. This can take a while. In addition, in many countries, certain actors make their living as the dubbing voice of specific big stars (Mel Gibson, Stallone, etc.), with no other actors allowed, so those deals have to be worked out.[]It costs a hell of a lot of money to create that many physical prints of the film. For a major North American release (U.S. and Canada), anything from 2000 to 4000 prints have to be produced, which is difficult enough; expand this to a simultaneous worldwide release, and that figure quadruples. Normally, the least-damaged North American prints are used for worldwide touring, which further saves money. Compare two real-world examples: The Mystery Science Theater movie had only eight or ten prints made total, and those prints then went on tour. By contrast, The Prince of Egypt (the animated Moses story from a couple of years ago) had a true worldwide release, and it was such a rare event that it was discussed in the trades. The expense was a big part of why that movie labored to make a profit.Worldwide distribution is logistically complex for reasons other than the physical prints. Here in the U.S., a half-dozen exhibitors dominate the national landscape, so setting up deals to get the movies on screen is pretty straightforward. By contrast, around the world, exhibition is represented by a patchwork of fiefdoms, each of which must be negotiated with separately. Further, many studio movies now have complicated financing arrangements that split domestic and international distribution between separate entities (Titanic, for example, was co-financed by 20th Century Fox and Paramount; Fox got domestic distribution, and Paramount got international). The likelihood of a split deal like this is even higher for an independently produced film that’s picked up for distribution by a major studio.[/list=1]So now that our misconceptions about how Hollywood could release its movies worldwide “if they wanted to” have been summarily dispelled, let the debate continue.
I forgot to add two more reasons international releases are more complicated than domestic:[list=a][]Modifying the movie: Many films are edited slightly differently depending on the country of release. Pearl Harbor, for example, had a jingoistic Doolittle speech deleted for its Japanese run. This works the other way, also; the Hong Kong film Shaolin Soccer is being drastically recut for its American release.[]Marketing: Posters, slogans, commercials, etc. work differently in different cultures, and all of that material must be reconceived for the various markets. Compare, for example, the American poster for the recent We Were Soldiers with the Hong Kong poster for the same movie.[/list=a]I trust the point is clear: Hollywood isn’t delaying its international releases just for grins and giggles.
Post-production, with very few exceptions, takes much longer than filming. Is the film too long? If so what do you cut? Of the many takes which ones are used in the final print? Sound effects (from laser-guns firing to footsteps) are added to the film. Cgi, matte shots and other visual effects are added. Actors may have to re-record some dialogue etc. In short, you’re done filming long before you have a finished film.
While the process of dubbing could be speeded up, simultaneous release is unlikely. Exactly how do you translate the film? EG "Morte Dulces" translates as both "Sweet Death" and "Death Candies" which translation do you use? If dubbing instead of captioning, new auditions are needed. The MPAA ratings apply only in the USA. The film may need to be altered to be approved in the UK, and other markets.
Even after release, audience reaction may lead to changes in the film. If other language versions have already been made, they have to be changed as well. It’s easier and cheaper to wait until you have a completely finished product before translating it.
1 Intelectual Property laws- Due to a loophole, an American company was able to publish Tolkien’s works without paying him royalties. Balantine published an authorised addittion with a foreword in which JRR commented on the theft. He was not upset that he didn’t make money from the unauthorised copies. He was upset that some one else did. Some one else was taking money for the work he spent so many years on. It is to prevent this, that we have intelectual property laws.
2 American Culture-The movie adaption of Fellowship was released this year. The director is from New Zealand. Many of the actors were from the UK. And, of course, it’s all based on a book by a man who was English. So this film is an invasion by American culture how?
Dispelled what? You’ve demonstrated that Hollywood could if they wanted to, it would just be more difficult. Surprise surprise.
There would not be pirating if there was no demand. This is a plain, simple, and undeniable fact. Furthermore, these extra-low grade priates are what is in demand, not the flashy stuff that Hollywood would eventually get to releasing if only the naughty pirates hadn’t culled the film’s interest first.
I am sorry, but I’ve seen nothing in your post that has demonstrated that film studios are helpless in this affair. Your second post completely ignores the entire problem with pirating in the first place: the apparently huge demand for it. I don’t suppose that the pirates are fdoing top-notch translation work here, do you? Then how can you claim that poor hollywood is bound to not make profits if they don’t accept cultural nuances when the pirates seem to have little trouble marketing an illegal product!
Expenses, Erislover. The studio has lots of them (see above post). To make a profit, it must make many sales.
The bootlegger has much fewer expenses. They can profit from much fewer sales. Thus, quality is not a concern. To improve quality would raise their expenses. The profit might, eventually, be larger. But, why bother when they can make money from thr crappy product they have.
Yes, there is a demand. Demand dose not justify a crime. Making fake ID’s for minors meets a demand. Making and selling them is still a crime.
erl
I really do not understand your point. Criminals want things. If they didn’t, they would not commit crimes. Thus, those businesses which do not give criminals everything they want are in some sense responsible for crime.
And you want a solution to this? Utopia much?
Oh, and the point that Cervaise and Doc Cathode were making is that real costs and difficulkties are associated with marketing a film worldwide. This is not only an artistic issue but a question of capital investment and risk. Say what you will about Hollywood, but criticizing a business for not taking enough risks to satisfy it’s potential customer base is a far cry from demonstrating culpability for a pattern of theft.
muffin
But by standing by and dooing nothing you support both. You grant tacit approval for intellectual theft. The product of that intellectual theft is the spread of “Hollywood cultural imperialism”. You are supporting both through your apathy.
The only “difference” you are making is which person profits from teh cultural assimilation. Do you have some moral reason for favoring profits to organized criminal organizations above profits to Hollywood studios?
For what will most certainly be the last time: the film corporations are not at fault. I never said they were. Clearly the pirates are at fault for their own crimes. If they are caught they should certainly be punished.
A person witnessing such a potential taping should do whatever they feel is right in such a situation. I would probably tell the manager of the event, but I don’t know for certain. I have never seen a pirate in action as far as movies go.
Finally, Hollywood can do whatever it wants. I don’t care much. And I am certainly not going to go out of my way to stop illegal exporting of crappy (and crappily copied) movies. But I am dubious about them lobbying our government to spend my tax dollars in order to nag other governments to spend their tax dollars solve what is clearly a problem of businesses not meeting the demand of their product.
If they weren’t going to release it, then they cannot possibly be losing any money. If they were going to release it then it is unfortunate that they cannot get a time scale together which would discourage pirating, and they certainly are losing money directly to pirating.
Again, it is not the responsibility of the business to meet its demand in all markets. Since we’ve cleared that up about a thousand times, what do we do about pirating? Again, the pirates are clearly at fault here in stealing to foster sales of a demanded product. Now that we’ve cleared that up a thousand times, what do we do about pirating?
If the movie industry is truly losing *billions of dollars here (as Cervaise mentioned that they suggest), then if they were proactive as I suggest the costs everyone is whimpering about would be made up a thousand fold.
One point: Why does everyone assume that these tapes will be full of crowd noise and obstructed view? I go to the movies on weekdays for matinees all the time and often there are only 1 or 2 people in there. A bootleg is not always a bad representation, IMHO (bad meaning poor quality)
I still don’t see why all that editing and dubbing needs to be done before the film can be shown overseas. If people are buying pirated American versions, obviously there’s a large market that doesn’t mind having English dialogue and jingoistic speeches.
Ship a few prints over there for the English speakers who know about the movie before the marketing starts - the same people who buy bootlegs - and save the marketing for when a dubbed and edited version is available.
Sorry for the poor phrasing re: culpablilty. I really did understand that you were not saying that the businesses are ethically responsible for being victims of a crime. I was simply trying to point out that a strong demand can be pointed to for every crime, yet we still prosecute criminals rather than wondering why businesses have not found a way to satisfy those markets. The analogy was strained, sure, but I thought the general point was salient to your position. To wit:
And here I thought you libertarian types were all about “protecting property rights” as one of the few legitimate goals of government. Every example of copyright infringment, patent violation, and trade law violations can be grouped under teh category “businesses not meeting the demand for their product”. Are you prepared to argue that the government should not attempt to enforce compliance with any international trade agreements?
Oh, no, of course the government should do its thing. I wholly support people turning in those who violate copyright (et al) laws, and if the government could come up with a good method of stopping distribution then I say go for it. But this isn’t exactly thievery in the sense that people are stealing what they cannot pay for. They clearly are willing to pay for the product. In fact, paying for it is part of the crime!
Because of that I think the businesses need to reassess their distribution schemes. It seems like the best solution where “everybody wins”.
My beef is simply that the businesses claim they are losing money because of the manner in which they choose to distribute their product. Well, so sorry, you know? If you don’t show up for work you ain’t getting paid.
Theif in question is the bootlegger. Purchaser in question (person paying for the item) is the customer.
exactly how is this different from the traditional type crime where theif robs my house, steals my jewelry, tv etc, and turns around and sells it elsewhere?
Not alot of theft is stealing something specifically for personal use.
wring, it is just as much of a crime to purchase a bootleg as it is to make one. Well, maybe not as much but certainly still a crime. And I don’t think a judge in the world is going to think that the purchaser thought it was a legitimate product.
eris dear, that simply doesn’t answer the question I posed to you. your quote again:
my response (redux) is “most theft can be broken down to this level, ie that people are willing to pay for the product, hence the theft”. The differences (that I can see) are:
in traditional theft, the ‘customer’ is unwilling to pay the price that the owner/manufacturer has established as the price they’re charging (so the ‘hot’ tv will go for cheaper than at the store). this doesn’t alter the morality of either participant in the scene, nor does it increase the culpability of the manufacturer or the property owner.
in the bootleg case, the ‘customer’ is unwilling to wait the x number of months in order to get the product legally.
I see no difference morally speaking between the two cases, regarding the participants actions.
IN both, the ‘customer’ and the ‘thief’ are unwilling to abide by the ‘rules’ set out by the property owner, and commit illegal acts to deprive the property owner of their rights.
And yet you set out your disclaimer as if there were a realistic difference between the two crimes in level of culpability. = color me confused.
This could be extended and argued (not by me though) that anybody reading this thread now knows that piracy is widespread and by not going to the movies tomorrow to seek it out and stop it, they tacitly approve it.
= color me confused.
