Would film making be profitable without IP laws?
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Sometimes movies rock, and they're profitable. Sometimes movies suck, and they aren't. IP laws change the details a little, but the concept stays the same.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Could you elaborate please. How would it be profitable if films could be pirated and sold at knocked down prices to cinemas, tv stations,etc.
Thanks.
A fairly simple solution would be for the film's producers to sign non-distrubtion contracts with the theaters and theater companies that they deliver the movie to. So that Regal Cinemas or AMC or whoever agree not to copy the movie and sell it to others on condition that they get the ability to show the film first. Considering that a movie usually grosses the highest in the first few weekends, you can see why this exclusivity would be desireable. Sure you'll get leaks and people will distribute it to smaller theaters or "bootleg" home copies, but these would probably tend to be of lower quality, and it happens today anyway.
You're right in that we probably would see the trend towards $100 million+ movies scale back a bit, but that's probably not a terrible thing.
The movie industry tries to make that claim all the time, (just like every other IP whore) but they never seem to be able to offer any proof.
Stephan Kinsella has written extensively on this. Check out his archives here and here.
Also, Against Intellectual Monopoly goes into practical applications of IP like this and its effects. (You can download it for free in the links section at the bottom of that page)
Yes.
Some movies are produced and profitable without IP. Some examples:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Without_Intellectual_Property#Movies
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)