The more I see those anti-piracy commercials the movie industry has been pushing in theaters and on television, the more they piss me off. No, I don't agree with the people downloading movies over the Internet and I believe what they're doing is wrong, but what bothers me is how the studios put forward the idea that the alleged billions in lost revenue due to piracy is hurting the little guy, like that girl serving you popcorn at the concession counter while making a measly $6.75 per hour. Puh-leese.

Does anyone believe this anti-piracy campaign is about anything other than big corporations and a bunch of rich guys trying to retain every filthy cent they possibly can? Sure, they have the right to do exactly that, but cut the crap. These commercials will probably have the reverse effect and cause people to be more blase about the whole issue, because the one thing I know about Americans is they can see right through a phony message (unless of course it involves something important, like bombing another country or deciding who to vote for).

I whole-heartedly believe the film industry doesn't deserve to be pirated the way the music industry does, because despite rising ticket prices they never lied to consumers about the future price of their product (like CDs). However, I also believe the amount of lost revenue is greatly exaggerated. People seem to forget who is most likely to download a movie online or buy a bootleg copy; I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet a significant percentage of the people who engage in these activities live in areas where they never even have the opportunity to see smaller movies. And by smaller I don't mean art-house flicks that only reach L.A. and New York, I'm talking about movies such as LOST IN TRANSLATION and MYSTIC RIVER, which have both performed well at the box office but I guarantee you were not available to more than just a few people living in the middle of nowhere.

I've always lived in California (both Northern and Southern) and have always been lucky when it comes to having a wide variety of films to choose from on any given day, so it makes sense that someone like myself has never once had the desire to obtain a film illegally. The same goes for almost everyone I know. But I have to tell you, if I lived in an area where there was only one giant theater dedicating all of its screens to THE RETURN OF THE KING and ALONG CAME POLLY, I'd probably be busy downloading a movie right now instead of writing this column. When you're making someone choose between driving four hours to see a film or simply downloading it, is it really fair to place all of the blame on them? Furthermore, is it really accurate to call this lost revenue? I'm sure there are plenty of people in Manhattan and Burbank who download new movies every week, but I doubt they're the majority.

Posted January 23, 2004 | link