Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argument?

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

All meaningless.

Obtaining a copy of copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

Excellent. As murder and rape are also illegal, one could reasonably describe those who engage in copyright infringement as murderers or rapists. This is fun!

Running a red light is also illegal.

Are red-light runners easily described as murderers are rapists?

There are degrees of severity, you know. (Which is why we often don't but robbery-comitters (an illegal act) in with murderes. Or give them the same senteces.)

Anecdotally it's called "piracy", the term exists in this context specifically because theft doesn't encompass it, even colloquially.

ALL pedantic semantics!

To steal. Is "to take [property] without permission of the owner."

Sounds like "piracy" falls under that catagory to me. It's aquiring property without permission.

If you want to define "property" as a physical object and that "it's not stealing if the owner still has that property" then, wow, there's lots of things we "steal" that aren't "really stealing."

How does a runner steal a base? He's not taking anything from anyone!

How does one steal a kiss? The kiss-ee doesn't "have the kiss."

This is all bullshit semantics.

Call it whatever you want.

Aquiring media without paying for it is illegal.

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

This is all bullshit semantics.

This would indeed be the case if folks weren't asserting that these activities constitute a crime for which offenders should be prosecuted. In this context "theft" is not a colloquialism, it is a defined crime and copyright infringement doesn't qualify as such.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

This is all bullshit semantics.

This would indeed be the case if folks weren't asserting that these activities constitute a crime for which offenders should be prosecuted. In this context "theft" is not a colloquialism, it is a defined crime and copyright infringement doesn't qualify as such.

So you don't think people who obtain copies of copyrighted materials without paying for them are committing crimes?

Or are you just still hung up on semantics?

We're talking casually and anecdotaly here. We're not defining legal terms or prosectuing anything.

Simply speaking. Pirating copyrighted works is "stealing" law enforcement and courts can call it and define it however they want.

Speaking casually here, it's stealing.

 

[jkladis]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Morally I think it's too difficult to lump piracy in with outright theft. The letter of the law regarding exhibition, copying, selling, etc. can be pretty unfair.

Anyway, I would guess that the movie goer to pirated DVD crowd ratio is about the same. The numbers for Wolverine are higher all around and it shows.

 

[Rii]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

This is all bullshit semantics.

This would indeed be the case if folks weren't asserting that these activities constitute a crime for which offenders should be prosecuted. In this context "theft" is not a colloquialism, it is a defined crime and copyright infringement doesn't qualify as such.

So you don't think people who obtain copies of copyrighted materials without paying for them are committing crimes?

Of course it's a crime, but that doesn't mean much, many things are illegal that shouldn't be, a crime isn't necessarily deserving of condemnation. Far more significantly, I don't believe piracy is morally defensible.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Or are you just still hung up on semantics?

Simply speaking. Pirating copyrighted works is "stealing" law enforcement and courts can call it and define it however they want.

Okay, seriously now... you can't try and dismiss others as being "hung up" on semantics and then continue to engage on a debate as to the meaning of the word "steal." Either you care about the meaning or you don't. Which is it?

 

[FPAlpha]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

these movies are good and the box office proves it (i'm assuming Star Trek is good of course ).

Sorry to pick nits, but box office numbers never 'prove' that a movie is good, only how many people go to see it at a particular time.

To a degree it does.. good movies have lasting appeal (as much "lasting" means these days). Hyped but bad movies make much money in the first 2-3 weeks and then drop of very sharply whereas really good movies have their huge openings but then continue on for quite some time although on a smaller level naturally.

Additionally there may be small gems that don't have huge ad campaigns and big stars yet thrive under word of mouth until they really take of. An example might be "My big fat greek wedding" that became a hit just because of this (and is a very funny ethnic/cultural comedy.. go see it).

 

[Rob Grant]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Ah. So you ARE playing a semantics game. Nice.

Besides the point, but nice.

You're the one who decided to harp on the incorrect idea that copyright infringement is theft. It is not. If you want to talk about semantics, which clearly you did because you engaged in the argument in the first place, don't get annoyed when you're demonstrated to be wrong. As an aside, I never understood why people will use "semantics" as a way to brush aside an argument. Words have meanings. If you can't use the correct meaning for words, how do you expect to participate in a discussion?

All meaningless.

Obtaining a copy of copyrighted material without paying for it is illegal.

Call it whatever you want, anecdotally and slang-idly it's called stealing.

who cares.. its free stuff

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

who cares.. its free stuff

The people who worked on the project and whose livelyhoods depend on getting paid which is dependant on people paying to view the project probably care.

 

[firehawk12]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

who cares.. its free stuff

The people who worked on the project and whose livelyhoods depend on getting paid which is dependant on people paying to view the project probably care.

Yeah, I think everyone got a paycheck for their work. I don't think the best boy key grip foley guy is getting a cut of the box office.

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

who cares.. its free stuff

The people who worked on the project and whose livelyhoods depend on getting paid which is dependant on people paying to view the project probably care.

Yeah, I think everyone got a paycheck for their work. I don't think the best boy key grip foley guy is getting a cut of the box office.

Regardless, if movie companies make less money distributing movies they'll make less movies, stop making movies, or make cheaper movies.

All of which requires less personell which means fewer jobs for those people.

If you're watching a movie and you didn't pay for it, you're doing something illegal, and you're a douchebag.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Well, considering he cost of the film was 158 million dollars, and you really have to triple the budget to be considered a profitting movie and make back that budget and advertising, I'd say W:O is a failure right now.

In the end -- with domestic and DVD profit -- I think it will just barely make any profit, probably killing the Magneto film, and another sequel.

That triple figure is so wrong. If it were right then very few movies would have sequels. There wouldn't be a Resident Evil trilogy, an Underworld trilogy and we could go on ad nauseum I've no doubt. How that BS of a figure gained hold is beyond me. I'm on a few box office sites and that is so laughed at when people bring it up.

Also, you've missed the news apparently but a direct W:O sequel has already been given the 'go'. Magneto is unknown although knowing FOX I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the latest hot items Deadpool and Gambit instead of Magneto.

I read about the sequel after making my post.

The trilple figure has merits, after all, because a studio doesn't want "double" the money they put into it back. All that happens then is they make back what they put into the budget, then the advertising cost is taken out, and then you have profit -- which wouldnt be enough to warrent a sequel. Somewhere along the line, it's just another dumb Hollywood executive who grteenlights countless shitty remakes, doesn't care and greenlights another sequel to a film that didn't make much to begin with.

 

[Jax]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

After monday the movie is up to $90 million taking 5 million over the day.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

So is the objection beacuse it's illegal? Or is the objection that it's morally wrong? For instance, if the industry successfully lobbied to illegalize the rental and re-sale industry, would you just accept it since both act as a means to deprive content owners of profit for their property? If it's a moral issue more than a legal one, does the fact that the industry objects to rentals and re-sales make you not want to rent or buy used media?

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

I object to it because it's taking money away from people who deserve to own it.

Studios employ thousands of people on projects. They deserve, and need to, make that money back to ensure future employment.

Studios spend millions to make a movie, they don't make money off people trading bootlegs on the internet. Because people are viewing it without paying for it.

If you think that's a moral issue or legal issue, whatever.

It's an assholish thing to do.

 

[Captain Craig]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Well, considering he cost of the film was 158 million dollars, and you really have to triple the budget to be considered a profitting movie and make back that budget and advertising, I'd say W:O is a failure right now.

In the end -- with domestic and DVD profit -- I think it will just barely make any profit, probably killing the Magneto film, and another sequel.

That triple figure is so wrong. If it were right then very few movies would have sequels. There wouldn't be a Resident Evil trilogy, an Underworld trilogy and we could go on ad nauseum I've no doubt. How that BS of a figure gained hold is beyond me. I'm on a few box office sites and that is so laughed at when people bring it up.

Also, you've missed the news apparently but a direct W:O sequel has already been given the 'go'. Magneto is unknown although knowing FOX I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the latest hot items Deadpool and Gambit instead of Magneto.

I read about the sequel after making my post.

The trilple figure has merits, after all, because a studio doesn't want "double" the money they put into it back. All that happens then is they make back what they put into the budget, then the advertising cost is taken out, and then you have profit -- which wouldnt be enough to warrent a sequel. Somewhere along the line, it's just another dumb Hollywood executive who grteenlights countless shitty remakes, doesn't care and greenlights another sequel to a film that didn't make much to begin with.

When you can find a reliable quotable source then the triple figure can have some merit. I've been on box office sites for a decade now and no one, NO ONE has ever produced a credible quote to this nature. NEVER.

Best I can figure is this has become like an internet snipe hunt. Some upset fanboy blogger in an effort to hate on a flick began speculating. Perhaps the speculation had merits. I do know that on occasion I've read of studio's stating the marketing so no doubt that's added fire to the snipe hunt.

The only facts we know are that studios base their decisons largely on the production budget. The last few years DVD revenues have become factors on "bubble movies" but how it performed vs its production budget is still key.

Blame lazy fat cat studio execs if you want in an attempt to cover your tracks but franchises would not exist in the capacity they do if this TRIPLE figure held sway in the manner in which you believe it does.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Variety sez:

Twentieth Century Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" had claws sharp enough to survive a pirate attack, but it does appear to have taken a hit in a handful of foreign markets.

Fox insiders say they will never know how much the piracy cost the film worldwide but have floated a figure as high as $20 million.


"Wolverine" opened to $85 million domestically and $73.1 million internationally for an impressive worldwide total of $158.1 million.


In many territories, the prequel saw some of the best numbers of any film in the "X-Men" franchise. But in a handful of markets, it underperformed. Those territories include Germany, Korea and Thailand.

Granted, it's a trade publication that takes the industry side in all things. Maybe it's piracy, maybe it's bad word of mouth...the reviews have been pretty harsh.

I'll just post my usual attitude re: piracy. Anyone who thinks they're screwing over the big bad corporations by piracy is simply fooling themselves. Rest assured the corporations' ability to screw you over exceeds your ability to respond in kind by several orders of magnitude. Types of movies that attract enough piracy to impact the bottom line will become the movie types that corporations no longer bother to make. I suspect it will be a long time before piracy actually has that much of an impact on movies, but (perfectly legal!) TiVO is doing something similar to genre TV: killing it off and leaving us with nothing but cop shows and reality crap that nobody bothers to record and/or attract audiences who can't figure out how to work a TiVO.

 

[Arrqh]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Granted, it's a trade publication that takes the industry side in all things. Maybe it's piracy, maybe it's bad word of mouth...the reviews have been pretty harsh.

Heh, I like how they talk about other potential reasons it could have not performed as well in certain markets including the swine flu... but don't mention the critical panning at all.

I find this bit confusing:

Had the copy been a more complete version, "Wolverine" could have been far more damaged at the box office.

Are they suggesting that more people would have downloaded it if the leaked version was more complete (it was the same footage except for the VFX shots I believe?) or that some people who downloaded it went to the theater anyway only because they wanted to see the completed VFX bits?

 

[Daedalus12]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

Rest assured the corporations' ability to screw you over exceeds your ability to respond in kind by several orders of magnitude. Types of movies that attract enough piracy to impact the bottom line will become the movie types that corporations no longer bother to make.

Giving the rampant piracy culture in countries such as China where possibly 90% of music consumed are from illegal sources. Rest assured the only reason corporations haven't been fucked over is because there is a large population in the world who actually respect intellectual property.

 

[3superearthtrek]

Re: Wolverine opens to $87mil, does this kill the piracy hurts argumen

it just blows me away that people would want to watch it with cables in the stunts and CGI missing...at least wait for the real dvd rip.WOW!