Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Harvey Weinstein declares war on internet pirates, tries to shove jack back in the box   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 28
    More: Interesting, Harvey Weinstein, city lights, British Film Institute  
•       •       •

1592 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-12 12:21:04 PM  
Hey Harvey? Get your fat ass back to the casting couch and force some more aspiring actresses to pretend you're not a loathsome slug of a human being and shut your farking pie hole.
 
2012-10-12 12:26:06 PM  
I finally figured out why Harvey Weinstein has such a bug up his ass. It's because every time someone mentions his name, everybody immediately thinks that they mean this guy:

img2.bdbphotos.com

Harvey Fierstein.

I know I did, at least. Anyway, if soemone would please pay some additional attention to Harvey Weinstein this week, he will calm right down and things will be back to being normally abnormal in Hollywood.
 
2012-10-12 12:27:44 PM  
Maroon.
 
2012-10-12 12:29:40 PM  
And it was the billion-dollar Internet companies for which Weinstein reserved most of his ire - even going so far as to blame rampant piracy on video-sharing sites like YouTube.

Or maybe they could realize "Hey wait, YouTube other such have a viable content distribution model that lets them make money. Maybe we should get in on that action instead of just suing."

Of course Youtube doesn't have production costs and the like, but what people should push for is bandwidth to keep getting cheaper. Thus when you sell something for say 99 cents, 2 cents goes to serving the content and the other 97 comes back to you. Do that a couple million times and you just made 1.94 million dollars. Given how many people have internet, doing it a couple million times shouldn't be hard. Same with the ad impressions.
 
2012-10-12 12:37:04 PM  
Does Harvey Weinstein run Warner Brothers?

Because the googles tell me Rio Bravo 's copyright is owned by Warner Brothers.

If not, is he as guilty as YouTube? 

IANAL or an expert, I am really ax-ing.
 
2012-10-12 12:37:50 PM  
Hasbro is one of the few companies who knows how to handle the internet.

Say what you will about My Little Pony, but Hasbro is pretty much hands-off with fans using the episodes and characters to create their own material. They even allow full episodes to be uploaded to youtube, as long as it isn't the official HD versions for sale on itunes.

Basically, Hasbro's take on the whole situation seems to be "Do what you like, as long as you don't cost us any money. And hey, why not buy our merchandise?" And the fans happily comply.
 
2012-10-12 12:43:32 PM  
I wonder how he feels about basically lying about costs to fark people out of royalties owed to them and I find it ironic that they are saying hes championing independent film makers when hes made a shiat ton of cash by standing on those guys backs reaching for a dollar.
 
2012-10-12 12:58:15 PM  
So, there's an artist that had their whole catalog on iTunes for the longest time.

I was buying an album here and there, and went to fill in my gaps the other day.

Funny, I could have sworn they did something in 2006. Hey, even the album from 2011 is gone. ONE I BOUGHT ON iTUNES IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE. I have a sneaking suspicion I couldn't even re-download that one in my files got corrupted.

I checked on Amazon, thinking it was a vendor change, and same thing.

So I pirated the 2006 album. You bastards made me do it, I was trying to farking give you money. You wouldn't take it, and if I had gone physical you still wouldn't have gotten anything because I'd buy it used.
 
2012-10-12 01:27:18 PM  

Balchinian: I finally figured out why Harvey Weinstein has such a bug up his ass. It's because every time someone mentions his name, everybody immediately thinks that they mean this guy:

[img2.bdbphotos.com image 293x424]

Harvey Fierstein.

I know I did, at least. Anyway, if soemone would please pay some additional attention to Harvey Weinstein this week, he will calm right down and things will be back to being normally abnormal in Hollywood.


I'm so happy!
www.wearysloth.com
 
2012-10-12 01:28:57 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Hasbro is one of the few companies who knows how to handle the internet.

Say what you will about My Little Pony, but Hasbro is pretty much hands-off with fans using the episodes and characters to create their own material. They even allow full episodes to be uploaded to youtube, as long as it isn't the official HD versions for sale on itunes.

Basically, Hasbro's take on the whole situation seems to be "Do what you like, as long as you don't cost us any money. And hey, why not buy our merchandise?" And the fans happily comply.



The MLP "The internet is for porn" video is hilarious...
 
2012-10-12 01:30:16 PM  
Putting jack back in the box is too easy to be a proper comparison. Stopping internet piracy is like taking piss out of a swimming pool.

Although that may be easier than I'm aware; I took chemistry in junior year of high school, forgot everything after the AP exam, and haven't gone near it since.
 
2012-10-12 01:35:13 PM  

ha-ha-guy: And it was the billion-dollar Internet companies for which Weinstein reserved most of his ire - even going so far as to blame rampant piracy on video-sharing sites like YouTube.

Or maybe they could realize "Hey wait, YouTube other such have a viable content distribution model that lets them make money. Maybe we should get in on that action instead of just suing."

Of course Youtube doesn't have production costs and the like, but what people should push for is bandwidth to keep getting cheaper. Thus when you sell something for say 99 cents, 2 cents goes to serving the content and the other 97 comes back to you. Do that a couple million times and you just made 1.94 million dollars. Given how many people have internet, doing it a couple million times shouldn't be hard. Same with the ad impressions.


EXACTLY what I came here to say.

What the F*CK is wrong with these idiots that they don't understand this? The model is changing whether you like it or not. Get on board or have your shiat pirated.
 
2012-10-12 03:50:11 PM  

sure haven't: The model is changing whether you like it or not. Get on board or have your shiat pirated.


Agreed. Although I think the 99¢ somebody mentioned above is a little low for western nations, it is the right thinking. Media needs to be easy to access, acceptable quality and inexpensive. If you do that, they will come.

Instead, we have media owners and distributors trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. Just look at the fight between Netflix and Starz over streaming royalties as example. So instead of getting a cut from something, they are going to get a cut from nothing as people turn to piracy. Brilliant!


steamingpile: I wonder how he feels about basically lying about costs to fark people out of royalties owed to them and I find it ironic that they are saying hes championing independent film makers when hes made a shiat ton of cash by standing on those guys backs reaching for a dollar.


And this is why I have very little sympathy for the studios. They use very sneaky accounting tricks to make profitable films appear as if they broke even or even took a loss. They do it in part to screw people out of royalties.

Those people living in multimillion dollar glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.
 
2012-10-12 03:56:40 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Of course Youtube doesn't have production costs and the like, but what people should push for is bandwidth to keep getting cheaper. Thus when you sell something for say 99 cents, 2 cents goes to serving the content and the other 97 comes back to you. Do that a couple million times and you just made 1.94 million dollars. Given how many people have internet, doing it a couple million times shouldn't be hard. Same with the ad impressions.


Yes, just waive away the production costs... totally un-necessary expenditure.
 
2012-10-12 04:33:46 PM  

AcneVulgaris: ha-ha-guy: Of course Youtube doesn't have production costs and the like, but what people should push for is bandwidth to keep getting cheaper. Thus when you sell something for say 99 cents, 2 cents goes to serving the content and the other 97 comes back to you. Do that a couple million times and you just made 1.94 million dollars. Given how many people have internet, doing it a couple million times shouldn't be hard. Same with the ad impressions.

Yes, just waive away the production costs... totally un-necessary expenditure.


Avatar cost 280-310 million to make. So if you're charging 6 dollars per digital download and see 5.75 as profit (25 cents per download to server infra), you'd need to move 54 million copies to meet production copies. So population of Western Europe is 397 million, USA is 311 million, Canada 34 million. So out of that pool you'd need 7% of the population to buy a six dollar digital copy of Avatar to cover production costs, if you halve that pool (50% lack internet or the ability to use a digital download service) you're still only at 14%. Assuming digital download is your only way to make money. In reality you'd also have box office gross, plus you could rent it, etc. For that matter throw in another 200 million people (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore) and you have an even bigger pool to play in.

Something like Prometheus (cost 125 million) would need 3% of Western Europe + North America to buy a copy at 6 bucks to cover production costs. In reality you could likely charge more than 6 bucks for new movies and then drop the price over time, until eventually its free with ads inserted in so you make a bit off ad revenue.

Based on the App Store model, where developers have said they make more money with a free app + micropayments than a higher upfront app cost + no payments, there has to be a way for the media industry to get in on this. A sweet spot where they get a decent amount per purchase but also can benefit by being cheap enough to count as an impulse buys. Video games have production costs, yet they have this figured out. Skyrim managed to move 3.8 million units in the first 48 hours and Bethesda is claiming they pulled in 450 million off Skyrim. That covers Avatar and Prometheus.

/yes movies have more production costs in most cases, but they also have larger consumer bases and more options for revenue stream (theater)
//Hollywood fails because they fail to properly distribute their production costs
 
2012-10-12 04:34:14 PM  
Whenever I read about Harvey Weinstein, it makes me want to steal content, even content I don't actually like. He's not the best spokeman for his industry if he makes people want to do the opposite of whatever he's arguing for.
 
2012-10-12 05:25:42 PM  

wildcardjack: So, there's an artist that had their whole catalog on iTunes for the longest time.

I was buying an album here and there, and went to fill in my gaps the other day.

Funny, I could have sworn they did something in 2006. Hey, even the album from 2011 is gone. ONE I BOUGHT ON iTUNES IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE. I have a sneaking suspicion I couldn't even re-download that one in my files got corrupted.

I checked on Amazon, thinking it was a vendor change, and same thing.

So I pirated the 2006 album. You bastards made me do it, I was trying to farking give you money. You wouldn't take it, and if I had gone physical you still wouldn't have gotten anything because I'd buy it used.


Did you check the artist's site? maybe they went independent and you can give the money right to them.
 
2012-10-12 07:08:05 PM  
Stop stealing Oscars, Harve.
 
2012-10-12 07:41:43 PM  

ha-ha-guy: //Hollywood fails because they fail to properly distribute their production costs


I thought they were doing a really good job on that, it just never makes it to the books properly. My understanding:

Movie A needs this camera, costs 50k. Buys. Writes down cost of 50k.
Movie A finishes production
Movie B needs same camera. Takes camera that is now unused for Movie A.
Movie B writes down that it bought the camera from Movie A for 50k (or rents it from the studio for 50k), even though it's the same studio or the item is owned by the studio already and not being used.

Yes, wild speculation but it's been the logic I've had for a while. At the very least you can look at films like Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump, and see that their statements of them never turning a profit are just a complete fantasy.
 
2012-10-12 11:21:56 PM  
keep up the stereotype, whiny biatch.
 
2012-10-13 01:22:46 AM  
Meanwhile visual fx artists are the only part of film making that isn't unionized and has shiat working conditions. They're starting to send those jobs overseas claiming it's not profitable here. Thanks a$$holes, I might just download some shiat I don't even want to watch just to piss you off.
 
2012-10-13 01:36:24 AM  

Dinjiin: And this is why I have very little sympathy for the studios. They use very sneaky accounting tricks to make profitable films appear as if they broke even or even took a loss. They do it in part to screw people out of royalties.

Those people living in multimillion dollar glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.


Still the most glaring one was the studio(paramount I think) saying Coming to America didnt make any money, I think it grossed in the $200 million range worldwide yet when they lost the lawsuit against buchwald they claimed it lost money so hes still owed no royalties.......
 
2012-10-13 01:47:52 AM  
Oh and here is some interesting reading Hollywood accounting

Overall according to New Lines accounts the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.----New Line talking about Lord of the Rings trilogy.

A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper.----wow, just wow. What scumbags, its why nobody feels guilty about downloading shiat off the internet.
 
2012-10-13 02:33:18 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Hasbro is one of the few companies who knows how to handle the internet.

Say what you will about My Little Pony, but Hasbro is pretty much hands-off with fans using the episodes and characters to create their own material. They even allow full episodes to be uploaded to youtube, as long as it isn't the official HD versions for sale on itunes.

Basically, Hasbro's take on the whole situation seems to be "Do what you like, as long as you don't cost us any money. And hey, why not buy our merchandise?" And the fans happily comply.


You know what's even funnier about that, besides you being right? Hasbro is making solid money. I own Hasbro stock, and all the investor newsletters and SEC releases show good numbers consistently (girls toys is doing exceptionally well, even with the Pony fandom being factored in). Not being dickheads is working for them, so they're VERY satisfied with not being dickheads.

18 shares of Hasbro, at 30 cents per share dividend every quarter = $5.40 = One new Pony toy every 90 days for letting a company have some of my money to borrow. (Yes, I know equity isn't a loan, but the money is tied up and I can cash out/collect it whenever I want, it's the same effect as a loan)
 
2012-10-13 10:00:51 AM  

steamingpile: Dinjiin: And this is why I have very little sympathy for the studios. They use very sneaky accounting tricks to make profitable films appear as if they broke even or even took a loss. They do it in part to screw people out of royalties.

Those people living in multimillion dollar glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.

Still the most glaring one was the studio(paramount I think) saying Coming to America didnt make any money, I think it grossed in the $200 million range worldwide yet when they lost the lawsuit against buchwald they claimed it lost money so hes still owed no royalties.......



IIRC, Return of the Jedi still hasn't turned a profit.
 
2012-10-13 05:55:28 PM  
So Hollywood has new ideas and they're going to stop just remaking every film already produced?
 
2012-10-13 11:37:34 PM  
Didn't he already have the surgery to put "jack" back in the "box", as it were? I'm still just trying to get used to saying "The Weinstein Siblings" instead of "The Weinstein Brothers"
 
2012-10-15 01:40:56 PM  

croesius: Didn't he already have the surgery to put "jack" back in the "box", as it were? I'm still just trying to get used to saying "The Weinstein Siblings" instead of "The Weinstein Brothers"


Perhaps you're thinking of the Wachowski siblings, and not the Weinsteins?
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report