Artists

[Tim May]

There's a flaw in this argument:

On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 11:10  AM, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> Let us imagine that all efforts to enforce copyright on the
> internet were abandoned, and that everyone in the world has a fat
> pipe capable of downloading movies.
>
> First, most people who want to see lord of the rings want to see
> it a theatre.  The scene in the mines of Moria, the backgrounder
> on the origin of the ring, the dark riders crossing the river, are
> all written for the big screen, and are worthless on a small
> screen.
>
> Secondly, most people who want to see lord of the rings do it as a
> pilgrimage, so they do it when it first comes out, and they take a
> date, or go with a bunch of friends.  It is positively
> sacriligious to see it on a small screen, or to see it without
> making a special occasion of it.  After all this is not just
> another Buffy episode.
>
> Thus fat pipes and an end to internet copyright would have had no
> significant effect on the profits from the Lord of the Rings.


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.

--Tim May
"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose,  is somehow morally superior to a woman 
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"