Finally, one of the great factoids in L&B’s book is how even when drugs go off-patent, the name-brand (A) still costs far more but (B) maintains a substantial market share. The same is true with every category of generic product I can think of, from cereal to bandaids.

We (used to) let true market competition work everywhere else. Why not here? Just because we’ve put up with it so long doesn’t make it reasonable!

It seems highly unlikely that pirates could run a high-volume, high-visibility operation like a movie theater. And if you mean by this scenario that there will be underground movie theaters in anonymous and out-of-the-way venues like empty buildings or abandoned warehouses, then the negative consequences fail to appear, as such a hard-to-find market could never compete with the established theatres.

It’s certainly true that the theater would have the advantage of advance publicity. Clearly, that would allow them to generate some profits above what the knock-offs get. But I have trouble believing that the difference would be sufficient to produce blockbuster movies.

I don’t think we can assume the knock-off theaters would be in any way inferior to the first-run theaters. The reason we tend to associate knock-offs with cheapness is that they invariably operate in a black market. They can’t afford to invest the capital to make the experience on par with the original. But in the world Levine envisions, they wouldn’t be outcasts. They’d be entirely legal businesses, and so therefore could afford to invest in the same amenities, food, services, etc, as the authorized theaters. As a result, it seems likely that any stigma associated with knock-off theaters would likely fade.

As for the broader point about whether we need $200 million movies, I think that’s a point that deserves its own post…

Amanda points out just one of the additional potential benefits of the scenario: derivative works that are better than the original.

A lot of movie fans assume life without blockbusters would be unbearable. I’m indifferent to blockbusters because so many of them are completely bad. Thus, I find myself intrigued with the potential for better movies.

Amanda points out just one of the additional potential benefits of the scenario: derivative works that are better than the original.

A lot of movie fans assume life without blockbusters would be unbearable. I’m indifferent to blockbusters because so many of them are completely bad. Thus, I find myself intrigued with the potential for better movies.

King Kong might be the best example of this: it’s a good movie, but would have been much better with significantly tighter editing. Could a pirate house make money by doing the editing that should’ve been done in the first place and showing a 2-hour version of King Kong?

Many people would probably want to see the official version, the one they’d read about in reviews. (Could reviewers be induced to write about pirate-edited films? Professionals probably wouldn’t or they’d lose industry perks, but internet buzz is becoming a larger and larger force…)

However, some people avoided seeing King Kong because of what they’d read in reviews – it was too long, the insect scenes were too disgusting, etc. You might be able to get a decent-sized audience by advertising a shortened version with a smaller gross-out factor.

This would, of course, especially apply to things that have dedicated fans–but this might be a good thing. You’d tend to get big-budget movies backed by true believers, which are often (though not always) the best sort.

Also, a large part of Levine’s response is that the costs of production would drop drastically as stars started seeing their salaries move closer to their opportunity costs. This would have a pretty real effect. Compare the fees actors are willing to settle for in independent films, for example. (Yes, it’s not a perfect comparison for various reasons, but it is suggestive.)

I agree that there would be fewer big-budget movies, even considering these effects. But it seems odd to design policy around, not just this one tiny category, but the best of that category (for every Kong there’s something pretty awful). Elimination of copyright would make big-budget extravaganzas a problematic strategy, but it would simultaneously make micro-budget films much, much cheaper (no more clearing music rights, ability to adapt books without a license, etc.).