• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress set to ban box-office trading

Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Next up on the Government's agenda to fight on behalf of intellectual property aggression and against free markets is the banning of the "movie futures" market.
Congress set to ban box-office trading | EW.com

What are movie futures?
Bets on for success at box office

Movie future's is a risk investment market. You know, kinda like gambling but not really. Investors bet on the success of a movie, and if the movie is a success in the box office, they win. If not, they lose. But that's not all. The reason why they came up with this market is so that films can be eligible for more funding. What kind of films? Any film that gets released in movie theaters and sells tickets.

The reasoning behind a ban on this market is because the MPAA fears that it'll pre-determine the success of a movie. If that were true, any movie with a high advertising budget would never flop and a majority of the films that the MPAA distributes are ones that would have bets placed on it. I think the real reason why the MPAA is so adamantly against this is because it allows for more competition with independent film makers.

Maybe the MPAA will want to go after rottontomatos and bloggers and other movie reviewers because their influence might pre-determine the success of movies as well. But, it's much easier to restrict economy than it is to restrict speech so better to stealthily kill birds individually with B.B. pellets rather than drop a boulder on an entire nest all at once.

This is very irresponsible during a recession, to approve of legislation that takes away investment opportunity that would lead to jobs and competitive pricing.

I just learned all about this a few hours ago so I'm interesting to hear of things that I have left out or not realized.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Next up on the Government's agenda to fight on behalf of intellectual property aggression and against free markets is the banning of the "movie futures" market.
Congress set to ban box-office trading | EW.com

What are movie futures?
Bets on for success at box office

Movie future's is a risk investment market. You know, kinda like gambling but not really. Investors bet on the success of a movie, and if the movie is a success in the box office, they win. If not, they lose. But that's not all. The reason why they came up with this market is so that films can be eligible for more funding. What kind of films? Any film that gets released in movie theaters and sells tickets.

The reasoning behind a ban on this market is because the MPAA fears that it'll pre-determine the success of a movie. If that were true, any movie with a high advertising budget would never flop and a majority of the films that the MPAA distributes are ones that would have bets placed on it. I think the real reason why the MPAA is so adamantly against this is because it allows for more competition with independent film makers.

Maybe the MPAA will want to go after rottontomatos and bloggers and other movie reviewers because their influence might pre-determine the success of movies as well. But, it's much easier to restrict economy than it is to restrict speech so better to stealthily kill birds individually with B.B. pellets rather than drop a boulder on an entire nest all at once.

This is very irresponsible during a recession, to approve of legislation that takes away investment opportunity that would lead to jobs and competitive pricing.

I just learned all about this a few hours ago so I'm interesting to hear of things that I have left out or not realized.
Brace yourself for inane comments about how it's theft and/or it steals from "artists."

This is no reason for this ban, except to exclude competition, in favor of big business.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes. I will never understand the sympathy for the MPAA.

Take for instance Star Wars. If it weren't for all of the copyright infringement in fan movies, the movies would not have been kept relevant and the trilogy would not have been shown in the theaters 3 times and there would have not been a prequel series or tv shows or those ewok movies or anything. Is it a control issue with the MPAA or is it pure ignorance?

Why do they always talk about job loss and profit loss? Copyright infringement created many jobs in the Bruceploitation genre and it kept actors like Bolo Yeung and others who appeared in Bruce Lee movies relevant since they've appeared in bruceploitation films.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Crowdsourcing the likely popularity of a movie, through a prediction market or other similar mechanism, could be very useful for the film industry. It could help them produce their best ideas and discard their worst. If the MPAA is worried that it'll predetermine a movie's success, that's tough ****. That's not a good enough reason to ban it. There is no intellectual property infringement here...the MPAA just doesn't want anything interfering with THEIR power to predetermine a movie's success.
 
Last edited:

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,321
Reaction score
21,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Take for instance Star Wars. If it weren't for all of the copyright infringement in fan movies, the movies would not have been kept relevant and the trilogy would not have been shown in the theaters 3 times and there would have not been a prequel series or tv shows or those ewok movies or anything. Is it a control issue with the MPAA or is it pure ignorance?
This is blasphemy. End of story. Watch Star Wars. Then we'll talk.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is blasphemy. End of story. Watch Star Wars. Then we'll talk.
What makes you think I never did? Because I don't think the popularity of the movie is only thanks to a mere theater showing of A New Hope shown in 1977? If movie studios went after fan films and won on copyright infringement claims, if Sony lost in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., there would have been absolutely no Star Wars fan hysteria or at least one that is as big as it is today.

I guess I haven't seen any Bruce Lee movies either. Yeah, a theater showing of that "Enter the Dragon" piece of **** really made the Bruce Lee legacy. It wasn't the cheap and multiple releases by multiple companies of all his other movies. It's not the bruceploitation. It's not the constant parody since it's release. It's not all of the bootlegged merchandise. It's not the unauthorized biographies, no. It was a theater showing of his second crappiest movie that fueled all of the hysteria that keeps Bruce Lee relevant today.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What makes you think I never did? Because I don't think the popularity of the movie is only thanks to a mere theater showing of A New Hope shown in 1977? If movie studios went after fan films and won on copyright infringement claims, if Sony lost in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., there would have been absolutely no Star Wars fan hysteria or at least one that is as big as it is today.

I guess I haven't seen any Bruce Lee movies either. Yeah, a theater showing of that "Enter the Dragon" piece of **** really made the Bruce Lee legacy. It wasn't the cheap and multiple releases by multiple companies of all his other movies. It's not the bruceploitation. It's not the constant parody since it's release. It's not all of the bootlegged merchandise. It's not the unauthorized biographies, no. It was a theater showing of his second crappiest movie that fueled all of the hysteria that keeps Bruce Lee relevant today.
I very much support this type of trading, because basically, I'm really freaking good at it and could make a lot of money - but don't have enough right off to invest highly in a particular film.

That said, it is essentially gambling and insider trading could be a big issue. So I understand the concerns.

What you could be supporting is a "The Producers" strategy. By that, I mean, you could get 150% of high-end investors into a movie - hedge your bets through future trading - and then get rich as it fails. You could intentionally create a failure and get rich off it.

The problem with the model they're proposing is that it only allows for investing based on the opening weekend and the next four weekends. So, a word of mouth hit that has long legs at the box office (MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING for example) would lose the investor money in this type of market. The market should allow investors to be involved through all levels of releasing. That I would wholly support.

By the way, I play the HSX (Hollywood Stock Exchange), which is set up by one of the companies creating this type of market, and I've turned $2 million in play money to $25 million of play money over a decade. So, I do know a little bit about what I speak. The model they're suggesting follows the "play money" model they use currently.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What makes you think I never did? Because I don't think the popularity of the movie is only thanks to a mere theater showing of A New Hope shown in 1977? If movie studios went after fan films and won on copyright infringement claims, if Sony lost in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., there would have been absolutely no Star Wars fan hysteria or at least one that is as big as it is today.

I guess I haven't seen any Bruce Lee movies either. Yeah, a theater showing of that "Enter the Dragon" piece of **** really made the Bruce Lee legacy. It wasn't the cheap and multiple releases by multiple companies of all his other movies. It's not the bruceploitation. It's not the constant parody since it's release. It's not all of the bootlegged merchandise. It's not the unauthorized biographies, no. It was a theater showing of his second crappiest movie that fueled all of the hysteria that keeps Bruce Lee relevant today.
Im sorry, I don't agree. Demand for bootlegs and pirated goods comes from the popularity of the film. Example: Starwars: People lined up around blocks and blocks to get into theatres and dressed as their favorite characters for the sequels.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Demand for bootlegs and pirated goods comes from the popularity of the film.
I would agree if unknown and unpopular movies didn't get pirated. Or if Bruce Lee's popularity and legacy is as big or bigger than Star Wars because of all the merchandising and films based off of him. Or if bands that weren't in the mainstreem didn't get their concerts recorded.

Impersonation of a character is another infringement on intellectual property aggression.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom