Watching movies at home?

[Mr Evilwrench]

Oh, now we're getting all incremental again, like those KY teenagers that weren't so bad because they were just running around and stealing cars, not murdering anyone. A corporation makes an investment in creating intellectual property. They may spend more on that than makes sense to you, but it's their circus, their monkeys. They then offer it for sale at whatever price they determine, and if you decide to buy it, you're buying the intellectual property rather than the recording medium. It's your decision whether the price is fair; you have to determine how badly you want to see/listen to/read it, and whether you're willing to pay that price. It costs about $.50 to make a CD or DVD and all the packaging, so the value is in the content. Taking the content without paying for it is much worse than just sticking the CD in your pocket and walking out of the store with it. Now turn it around. If you were an author or musician, would you think it's ok for people to take your content without paying for it? Yes, there should be a way to buy an individual song vs a whole CD of crap with one good song, and there is now.

 

[steveh_131]

If you were an author or musician, would you think it's ok for people to take your content without paying for it?

Ever borrowed a book? A CD? A VHS tape? A DVD?

Do you think it was ok to take that content without paying for it?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Ever borrowed a book? A CD? A VHS tape? A DVD?

Do you think it was ok to take that content without paying for it?

Ah, but it had been paid for. Maybe not per use, but per unit.

 

[steveh_131]

Ah, but it had been paid for. Maybe not per use, but per unit.

This is likely also true for most duplicated songs and movies to be found on the internet.

 

[looney2ns]

Do you own a theater?

Part of my issue is that movies now cost so much to make. A lot of that is because actors think they should be paid 20 million dollars for 90 days work. Half of the films rely so much on CGI that they have no real plot.

I also don't attend pro sporting events for the same reasons that you stated. I enjoy them on TV much more.

It's not so much the cost of the ticket I object to as the refreshments. True no one says I have to buy, and I usually don't, but $15 - $20 for a popcorn and two drinks is ridiculous. I'm not sure if it is quite as much mark up as printer ink, but it has to be close. I would rather rent a movie, pop some Butter Lovers popcorn, grab a 2 liter, and watch it in my media room, but that may just be me.

Cost is relative. Some people think a $20 meal is expensive and some think it's cheap but I will bet that even the ones who think a $20 meal is cheap think the cost of soda and popcorn at the theater is expensive.

I always kind of judge inflation by what I paid making minimum wage back in the late 70s to what I could get for minimum wage now. Back then I think MW was about $3.50 and so was a movie ticket. Now MW is $7.75? and a ticket is $11. I don't even remember thinking twice about the cost of popcorn and soda back then.

I make a heck of a lot more than MW now but somehow movies still seem expensive to me.

Actually, I have in the past. I've owned several over the past 32 years.

Truth of the matter is, most all theatres would go under if not for the concession stand. The film co's are taking more of the pot each year. Most theatres charge what the market will bear at the concession stand. If the majority of people wouldn't pay it, the price would come down.

By your pricing, ticket prices have only raised 1.8% per yr since the late 70's. Way under the inflation rate, especially during the Jimmy Carter days.
That's only $0.20 per ticket per yr.

Several studies have suggested, if ticket prices kept up with many other entertainment prices, they would be in the $40-$50 range in middle America.

Very few actors can command $20mil per picture these days. We don't have any actors that have that sort of draw any longer.

Due to government polices, property and other taxes has skyrocketed for commercial property along with insurance.

Once upon a time not very long ago, you could equip an auditorium for a movie presentation for $50-$60k per auditorium. Now due to digital conversion it's $200k and up per screen. Add another $30-40k if you want 3d.

And yes I agree, Hollywood puts out a LOT of crap these days. But they also put out a lot of very decent stuff that gets completely over looked by the public.

In this thread we have lots of comments that show part of what's wrong with America today. With the mindset, it's somehow ok to steal someone else's work.

Added: Average ticket price in 1980 was $2.69. In 2014 the average price was: $8.17. Darn cheap still by any book.
Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

 

[HoughMade]

Creating a new, additional copy is not the same as reusing the same copy that someone paid for.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

But you don't keep it, just read/watch/listen to it while you have it checked out.

 

[tatic05]

Copying a DVD, CD, VHS tape you purchased is not illegal since you are allowed to have a back up. If you sell that copy then thats a different story and IS illegal. Its almost the same as a DVR, you record something off your TV and you can keep it as long as you want. You can swap out the HD and put in a new one and store more of them if you want.

If you let your friend borrow a DVD or CD to watch or listen is that theft since they did not purchase but they are listening or watching said movie? I understand and agree that pirating movies or music is morally wrong and in some countries illegal. Thats part of the reason why most of that data is not stored here in the states.

 

[steveh_131]

But you don't keep it, just read/watch/listen to it while you have it checked out.

So as long as I delete a pirated song after I've finished listening to it for an arbitrary length of time, we're ok?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

As you see fit, I've split the hairs quite enough for my taste.

 

[steveh_131]

As you see fit, I've split the hairs quite enough for my taste.

It's hard to maintain any type of moral consistency when dealing with imaginary property.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Not if you don't overthink it. It's somebody else's stuff, keep thy hands off.

 

[looney2ns]

Something I am wondering......why don't movie theaters offer a way to buy the movie for viewing on computer monitor? Like in my case...I would gladly pay them admission price to be able to watch on my computer.

Is it because they think people would put on big screens and have movie viewing parties? Is it because they can't sell you $6 popcorn and $5 Cokes? I would think it would generate more income for them...because people who go to movies will go regardless...but they would pick up the people like me that don't do movies indoors.

Because movie theatres do not have the legal right to do so. A movie theatre is only renting said movie, with a contract attached to it that is anywhere from 15-20 pages long. Including giving up the right to your first born. The theatre either abides by the terms of the contract, or the film co takes the film away from you, and never lets you have one of their films ever again.

I just don't get the bit of watching a good movie on a 6" screen. A movie such as Unbroken or American Sniper looses so much when on the small screen. I guess it's like training the millennials to "like" the crappy mp3's most listen to today. They've never experienced music on a real sound system at home.

 

[steveh_131]

Not if you don't overthink it. It's somebody else's stuff, keep thy hands off.

It was, until they sold it to someone else. The only people who are over-thinking this are the ones who think they can sell their property and still own it.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

.mp3s aren't necessarily crappy. I think at 128KBPS they're equivalent to DVD audio, and they can be encoded a lot higher than that. The term mp3 refers to the audio layer of the .mpg standard, which is what's used for DVDs and satellite TV.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

It was, until they sold it to someone else. The only people who are over-thinking this are the ones who think they can sell their property and still own it.

Well, we're not talking about lawn mowers or nose hair trimmers here; intellectual property falls under copyright law rather than property law. Even if you sell a copy of a piece of intellectual property on some recording medium, you still retain copyright, so if someone else copies it, they're in violation short of fair use for commentary, review or parody. Now I'm seriously done. I need some more sudafed. My face hurts.

 

[rambone]

 

[steveh_131]

Well, we're not talking about lawn mowers or nose hair trimmers here; intellectual property falls under copyright law rather than property law. Even if you sell a copy of a piece of intellectual property on some recording medium, you still retain copyright, so if someone else copies it, they're in violation short of fair use for commentary, review or parody. Now I'm seriously done. I need some more sudafed. My face hurts.

I understand the legalities. Doesn't mean it's rational. Also doesn't mean it qualifies as "theft" in any moral sense.

 

[HoughMade]

So as long as I delete a pirated song after I've finished listening to it for an arbitrary length of time, we're ok?

I guess you can burn a stolen book after reading it, but it doesn't mean you didn't steal it.

 

[steveh_131]

I guess you can burn a stolen book after reading it, but it doesn't mean you didn't steal it.

And even if you return it to the guy who lent it to you, you still stole it from the content creator.

Right?