But right now copies of recent release movies (post screen release, but pre DVD/VHS relase) are not generally available in high quality format, suitable for projecting. So one way that the movie distribution industry could plausibly continue to make money would be rather than the movie theatre being subject to copyright laws forbidding them from copying and further distributing, they would be under a private contract not to do that. Actually I'm not sure what they're doing now -- it would seem likely that both private contract and copyright are used -- the movie distributors may easily want to impose more restrictions than those directly imposed by default copyright. Post copyright, with private contract only, the movie theatre would have an interest to comply with the contract due to the penalties agreed to in the contract, which might include fines, escrowed monies, or no access to further releases. The movie industry has so far been succesful from what I've seen in preventing DVD quality copies being distributed prior to DVD release. Publicly distributed copies of pre-DVD release movies are "Screeners" obtained with a CAM corder in the theatre. Early releases (unauthorised distribution shortly before general public release) come from journalists or their guests making screeners from the pre-release screenings offered to journalists. The advent of digital projection which doesn't have much deployment at theatres yet may alter this equation as perhaps it would then become easier for an insider (a theatre projectionist for example) to convert the content into MPEG4/DIVX format and retain good quality. Adam On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 12:45:31PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
There's a flaw in this argument:
[...]
People would go to theaters to see the film in all of its glory, true.
But the theaters would no longer, in your scenario, have to fork over money to the studios.
(Unless you are positing some situation where anybody may download any film, but then not display it to others. Or that theaters would face special regulation by government, etc.)
In any case, I know a _lot_ of people who watch most of their films on cable or satellite or DVD. And cable/DVD sell through is an important part of studio revenues. An end to copyright would have a _significant_ effect on revenue.
Note that I'm not endorsing copyright as it now stands, just disputing your point that ending download restrictions would have no effect on studio profits.