MONSTER INC Box Office Results

[JeffJewell]

Don't forget Diyvx. That Failed and Failed big time. It was an attempt at pay per use.

True, but that attempt required the willing cooperation of the user. I think that's why the big companies are going about it through litigious means, at this point.

Sony released the minidisc which was similar AND released music for it, it failed too.

Speaking as a recording musician, I can tell you that the MiniDisc format is inherently flawed (it is a digital format, but uses a "lossy" recording technique: in short, the copy is _not_, in fact, an exact digital copy of the original). The MiniDisc did not offer a significant advantage in quality, and therefore it never caught on in the numbers necessary to start bringing hardware prices down through economies of scale.

Actually, when you consider the timing of it all (and the entertainment companies specific complaint about DAT: that users could make unlimited copies that were digitally identical to the original) the MiniDisc was likely Sony's attempt to appease the entertainment companies. Unfortunately, the consumers did not want the product the entertainment companies wanted them to have.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

This sounds much like lunch hour arguments all over Hollywood these days. Personally, I come down somewhat in the center. Yes, making unauthorized copies is theft of the “intellectual” property (I have a real hard time calling what this town creates “intellectual”, but that’s another post) and is not a good thing. A lot of people work hard to produce these products and under the existing rules they should be compensated. Even I enjoy cashing that 13-cent residual check from time to time.

However, the reason feel the need to make copies is basically because Hollywood is clinging to an outmoded business model and remains in denial that technology has changed since 1928. Why don’t publishers feel that photocopiers are a threat; because it’s much easier for people to buy the book or magazine rather than make a copy. If music and films were delivered in a more convenient manner and at a reasonable price point, illegal copying would not be an issue.

Napster was a threat not because there would be millions of copies of one hit track; it was a threat because people wouldn’t be forced to pay $20 to get nine other rotten tracks that come with the album. The music industry has gotten rich by shoveling out bad product and they don’t want that to change. Why do people make copies of just released movies; because not everyone wants to go see them in a theater. But Hollywood is hooked on a food chain – theatrical to pay-per-view to home video to premium cable to network to syndication – that requires the audience to watch the film at the studios whims (and not when the audience wants to see it) and that forces the audience to pay for the same movie multiple times. And if the movie is worth $8.75 to see it in a theater, how come it’s now worth $20 to see it at home?

Hollywood right now is a town that thinks telephones will never catch on because there are too many message boys around, that Americans will never by foreign made automobiles, and that no one wants a computer in their home. Market forces and technology have a way of crushing companies that don’t understand them.

 

[YoHo]

Av, I agree with you. Especially about Napster.

As to DAT, Jeff, Having owned a DAT Machine, I know that with a CD Player with Digital connections, I could go from CD to DAT and have a perfect copy. If this were a technology people wanted, the early adopters would have done this. I agree that Digital copies is a problem for recording companies, but it is not the big one. MP3s after all are lossy copies as well. Yet, people rarely think twice about it. If I had to guess, I'd say the biggest reason CDs and now DVDs have caught on is due to the sound quality partly, but more importantly the lifespan of the media. tapes, Digital or not have a finite lifespan.

Another Voice makes a good point when he comments on cost of the product. People won't pay $17 for 2 good tracks and seven bad ones. they'd much rather get 2 good tracks and that's it.

I think people would pay for that instead of using the likes of Napster. The easiest way to kill something like that is offer it for free.
to go back to my George Lucas Vs. the Internet comment. the way george won was by creating star Wars.com and then giving out tidbits. By doing that, far fewer sites with Illegal media are around.


Just to get back to DAT. Dat was never going to last long anyway. For a few years it was the only choice for Digital Recording, now its just as easy to plop the fully digital track down on an 80 gig hard drive do some digital manipulation and burn it to CD. Technology just passed it by.

 

[Quentin Disney]

Originally posted by Another Voice

Napster was a threat not because there would be millions of copies of one hit track; it was a threat because people wouldn’t be forced to pay $20 to get nine other rotten tracks that come with the album. The music industry has gotten rich by shoveling out bad product and they don’t want that to change.

I agree as well. I feel that the recording industry is a joke these days. Too much marketing, imitation and packaging. All of this commericalism has affected most genres. If the music industry focused on the quality of their songs and not about image and what not, then maybe I would still be buying CD's today. I wish the RIAA rode the wave. Now, no matter how hard they try, even if they try to put in place new methods of piracy, the consumers want to download their music. I am not paying $15-20 for an album that cost like what, $2 or $3 to make, then get only two or three tracks?

 

[JeffJewell]

We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them.

...I hope I didn't imply that. Didn't intend to. Yes, disregarding laws we disagree with is fraught with peril, even in well planned civil disobedience displays.

Chad, I mentioned you because I was tossing around some case histories without bothering to check any sources other than my own memory. I figured I'd manage to garble things to some extent or another, but it sounds like you concur that I got the factual stuff generally correct.

YoHo, one thing I notice that I thought I said or implied before, but looking back, realized that I wasn't very clear about it, was that one of the reasons for DAT's failure was the high price of blank media, and I'm pretty sure that those prices were inflated with a tax (or tariff or whatever the appropriate term would be in this case) that was instituted because of pressure from the entertainment lobby (this is another point where our resident lawyer's sphere of knowledge might come in handy, seeing as how, once again, I ain't goin' back to look it up).

Jeff

 

[johare]

We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them. To do so, would be the slipperiest of slopes.

YES, people can choose to ignore or disregard laws. There are literally 1000's of arcane and obsolete laws on the books in many states which are still 100% the LAW, however they are ignored and disregarded every day. There are many states which still have explicit laws which dictate what is legal for a married couple to do in the privacy of their own bedroom. According to you, these laws must be obeyed 100%, correct?

Whether arcane or not, copyright laws exist...and must be followed until they are changed

Really, how about this list of 'arcane' laws: http://www.floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html You say that just because arcane laws exist, they must be followed until they are changed. Well, most of the laws on this list still exist and haven't been changed. I'm sure that years from now when we are well into the digital age, some of our current copyright laws will seem just as ridiculous as some of the laws on this list. While copyright laws shouldn't be totally disregarded, common sense must be used when interpreting them and following them. People shouldn't feel guilty for ocassionally listening to an mp3 file they got for a friend...or for photocopying 2 pages of a good magazine article for a friend.

 

[YoHo]

There was no tax or Tarrif on Betamax (considering the format is still used professionally, I should say there still isn't).

While I honestly have no idea if there was one with regards to DAT, I suspect that it failed due to wrong place wrong time more then anything else. If there is one thing I've learned, its that content providers have never been very good at keeping down the court of public opinion. I just don't think DAT offered enough during the short time it was viable. (IE before CD-R and in dash CD players became standard. Now MP3 players come in cars)

Its an excellent format, don't get me wrong, but it didn't catch on during its window of oppertunity.
It might have caught on better if you could cheaply get a unit that played DAT and Analog Cassettes. Even better an in dash model. That would have sparked interest.

 

[hopemax]

We CANNOT ignore or disregard laws simply because we disagree with them. To do so, would be the slipperiest of slopes.

Actually we can, and in some cases SHOULD. The crux though, is if you knowingly break a law, even one you think is "unjust" you have to be prepared to take responsibility and accept what ever punishment is handed out.

It's Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" or MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." And in no way am I trying to elevate this issue to civil rights, but the idea that we should NEVER disregard a law, sits really wrong with me.

 

[YoHo]

How about we abandon the term Disregard?
No, we should never disregard a Law, but If we are going to be a Coniencious objector, we must accept any punishment delt with regards to it.

If in the instance we are talking about (I bet johare is long gone from this thread)

One were to be brought up on charges, the concencious objector would admit to what they did and accept the conciquences and use the opertunity in front of the judge to fight the injustice. Simply breaking the law and then avoiding authorities or lying, I have a big problem with. Of course despite what a lot of computer geeks would have you believe, the Intellectual property laws are not on the same level as say descriminatory practices.

 

[johare]

How about we abandon the term Disregard?

How about no. It is entirely appropriate to disregard or ignore arcane and obsolete laws.

If in the instance we are talking about (I bet
johare is long gone from this thread)

Long gone? How do you figure?

 

[YoHo]

Since we got so off topic and I figured it was your buisness and so forth.


Plus, I want to stop using Disregard, because disregarding the law is bad. Acknowledging the law and breaking it, because you disagree with it is far more reasonable. Of course I don't know of too many hacker types that think about Ghandi when they download Return of the Mummy or Hannible (two that I've found on the Hard drives of former coworkers.

 

[johare]

Since we got so off topic and I figured it was your buisness and so forth.

Ok, guess I misunderstood.

Plus, I want to stop using Disregard, because disregarding the law is bad.

Still think it depends on the law. Some laws are so ridiculous that they deserve to be disregarded.

 

[johare]

When the theater ticket and signs in the theater clearly say you are not allowed to ignore that simply because it does not strike your fancy as appropriate.

First of all, I don't remember seeing any signs and I don't think I spent much time reading my ticket before it was ripped in half. Besides, I didn't film, tape or record anything anyway so what's your point?

I'll bet that some people don't like that they drive a Corolla when their neighbor drives a Lexus...so, because they dislike this fact, they can just go take the Lexus???

You equate watching a VCD copy of a movie with stealing a Lexus? That certainly puts things in perspective and lets me know just how seriously to take your stance on this subject.

You paid to view the film in a theatre once. That's what the ticket you accepted said. Once. You did not pay your $7 bucks to get a copy and view all you want. To make that claim is nothing less than a rationalization for taking what someone else owns without their permission and against the rules they set...

And I watched the movie in the theater ONCE for that $7 (actually more like $25 for them family). What happens a week later independently of that theater is irrevelent. My point was that they didn't lose money on me. I didn't use a vcd copy of a movie to avoid or replace seeing it in the theater. Your 'black and white' view of everything does not reflect the real world.

I just wish all these people who take what others create without permission would try creating a song or a screenplay or a book themself. Maybe then they would realize the great effort it takes to create a good one which people want to see or listen or read

Back in the early to mid-80's I wrote a few small computer games which were available commercially and which for which I received a percentage for each copy sold. Did some people copy them? Of course, but I was smart enough to realize that that is just part of the cost of doing business.

 

[johare]

...guess we just disagree on whether laws involving copyrights should be followed.

Well, that should be fairly obvious.

But my question is, if you knew that it was illegal to watch a VCD of Monsters, Inc. what led you to decide that you could ignore that law...what led you to decide that "Hey, I don't care what the rules are...I can make my own rules"...what led you to decide that your watching a movie in a theater relieved you of complying with rules regarding watching bootleg copies...

As far as I'm concerned, if there is no victim there is no crime. The amount of money which Disney/Pixar did and will receive from me is absolutely no different than what they would have received had I never watched a VCD copy in between paying to see it at the theater and buying it on DVD. You might not agree with my viewpoint, but I live my life by my rules, not yours.

Because you wanted to. Sorry, but that is not a defense to knowingly and willingly breaking the law for which you had notice...The law provided you only a right to view Monsters, Inc. in a theater once.

What notice? Do you actually think people read the back of their ticket stub? Do you still think there is some connection between going to the theater and downloading a VCD? They are independent events. Do you think it would have been better had I never gone to see it at the theater? That way I would have had no notice and wouldn't have broken this rule which let me see the movie once? That doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does to you.

Johare, it really surprises me that you acknowledge that what you did was against the rules, but that the rules don't apply to you. That is a road which, based upon the many opinions and judgement calls in our society, no person could really what to follow.

Well, consider the laws to be 'guidelines' then. Most everyone has occassionally driven a few miles over the speed limit or photocopied a magazine article or stretched the truth a little on a tax return or jaywalked in the middle of a city block or loaned a CD to a friend who copied a few songs or now in some areas, driven while talking on a cellphone...all these things are 'breaking the rules' or violating some law, but does that make everyone a criminal? Your 'black and white' view of the law is out of touch with reality and the real world.

In other words. Just wait till it comes out on DVD and buy it or go see it at the theater again. Two perfectly legal and available options.

No thanks. I'm happy doing things my way.

Value is not relevant towards whether you actually broke the law only towards the level of penalty for breaking it...otherwise, you are correct, your theft would only be worth 29.99 or so...

Sorry, there is no valid comparison here.

 

[JeffJewell]

...perhaps it might be useful to make a little peace, here.

It seems that thedscoop is arguing his points from a "letter of the law" standpoint. What with him being all jurisprudent and all, this isn't surprising.

It seems that johare is arguing his points from a "world we actually live in" standpoint. Because the companies still own and control what he "stole," he sees watching a VCD as such a minor violation of law that that chance of prosecution is non-existant; and because he did pay for the theatre experience when it was available, and intends to pay for the DVD when it is available, he does not see it as a moral violation to watch the VCD copy during the period that neither of those options is available.

I'm certain neither party will be shy about correcting me if I've misinterpreted their respective stance.

The truth is, you're both right: it's illegal, but there is little to no chance of being prosecuted for watching a VCD movie.

The root question that will cause the friction in this exchange is whether the status of "being the law" means enough to you as an individual to make you want to adhere to the law, even if you feel it's silly or useless. I guess the standard example of this is the Speed Limit: are you a person who carefully watches their speed to ensure they never break the limit, or do you drive faster than that because it's convenient and (as long as you keep things within reason) you are not likely to get busted for it?

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Considering I've been busted for going 3 MPH over the limit, I tend to avoid it.

First of all, johare Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this country. The writing is on the back of the ticket and you didn't read the back of the ticket is not an excuse.

The money you are costing pixar (and Disney) is the $25 it would cost to take your family back to the Theater. That is the only legal way to view the movie again. True, its a small amount of money, and Disney/Pixar probably won't prosecute, but that doesn't matter. its still illegal.


I personally have a problem with ignoring a law that you think is silly or outdated (I don't think intellectual property law is silly, possibly outdated) for the purposes of your own convience. IF you want to fight intelectual property laws, then I would be right on your side, but I would expect more activism. Apathy of the law, not caring is unacceptable (personally, for me).

And again, I think this is a more difficult, because we're talking about theft as opposed to say civil rights.


Oh, and last I checked, Lawyers were in the Real world












Unfortunatly.

 

[johare]

Ok...few 'quotes to reply to here':

Jeff:

It seems that johare is arguing his points from a "world we actually live in" standpoint. Because the companies still own and control what he "stole," he sees watching a VCD as such a minor violation of law that that chance of prosecution is non-existant; and because he did pay for the theatre experience when it was available, and intends to pay for the DVD when it is available, he does not see it as a moral violation to watch the VCD copy during the period that neither of those options is available.

Jeff, that actually sums up my view point about as accurately as anything can.

dscoop:

It just eternally frustrates me that people fail to recognize that it takes alot of skill, time, and effort to create something which others want. Like GM with cars, this is how writers, artists, etc. make their livelihood.

I do recognize that it takes a lot of effort to create a movie like Monsters. I would not have considered downloading a VCD to avoid paying to see the movie in a theater. That said, I still don't see how watching a VCD can be possibly equated with stealing a car. My watching the VCD costs nobody anything. If I physically take an item like a car that is entirely different...unless you are now refering to stealing GM's design for a car and building my own, which really wouldn't be worth the effort!

But, anyways, if we've reached the point where Jeff has become the "peacemaker" then its obvious that this subject has run its course

I agree, so let's just declare Jeff's effort to be a success and agree to disagree here.

Yoho:

The money you are costing pixar (and Disney) is the $25 it would cost to take your family back to the Theater.

Incorrect. I have never gone to see a movie twice at the theater and this would have not been the first time. Therefore, my watching it a couple times on VCD while waiting for the DVD release costs Pixar and Disney absolutely nothing. If you don't agree with me then you'll also have to agree to disagree here because this debate is over and I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this now...especially when you are so clearly wrong!

 

[YoHo]

I'll agree to disagree. Really nothing more to say.

 

[MelissathePooh]

I wonder how Monsters Inc. will do this weekend with Harry Potter opening - I think it could get a good deal of business from people who can't get into Harry Potter (as I type, my next door neighbors are getting ready to go to the midnight showing of Harry Potter that they bought tickets for over a week ago). Any knowledgable opinions?
DR

 

[Buzz2001]

Our family saw Harry Potter last evening. It was good but just a bit long IMO. 2hrs and 37 mins. My DD made it through no problem. I didn't think she would. Both her and my DW loved the movie more than I did. We arrived at our show for a 4:50pm start on Friday and I was surprised to see they had Harry Pooter set for viewing in a smaller theater. Lowe's in CT has different size theaters and I expected it to be in the large one. Monsters still had 3 or 4 theaters going. I wouldn't expect Harry Potter to draw from the smaller kids over Monsters Inc. I guess it would depend on the parents but it could be scary for some small children.