Is film piracy as big a problem as it's made out to be?

Spacedog

Dman001

Sad Professor wrote: »

Like the music industry, the film industry tries to make out that everyone who downloads an illegal copy of a film would have bought or paid to see that film legally if not for illegal downloading. I don't believe this for a second. Many of them would have paid, yes, but certainly not all of them. I think a lot of people like getting stuff for free and if they couldn't get it for free they wouldn't be interested. So in that sense I do think it is exaggerated. However, that's not to say illegal downloading isn't doing tremendous damage. But it's the independent films and smaller foreign film industries that it's really harming.

I agree, I firmly believe some of the time, many people download a film simply because it's free and never had any intention of seeing the film in cinema/buying the DVD even if there wasn't illegally available. So these "Losses" they publish are very misleading.

A subscription service is definitely the way to go. Netflix do offer a great service, widely available on you mobile, iPod, iPad, DVR, TV, Game Console and Blu Ray Player in the US. But the content available is severely limited. They do have a great range of videos to Stream Instantly, but very, very little recent titles are available. The Movie Industry insists on a waiting period before they show up on Netflix, and they then complain about their losses from illegal downloads. It is this very reason we won't see a subscription service on iTunes. Apple have a huge range of Movies on the US iTunes Store, and I don't think Apple will agree to roll out a very limited subscription service.

jaykhunter

Blisterman wrote: »

Out of interest. If I rent an old movie from Xtra vision for €3, do the film makers get any of it, or did they just get the money from the original sale of the DVD?

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

I have no sympathy for the movie industry dragging their ass with instant HD streaming. That said I don't live in America where they have that option so I've no idea how awesome that service is. But I hope they have day one releases at a cheaper price than a physical disc.

Sad Professor

I assume the studios/copyright holders get the €200/whatever that Xtravision pay for the rental disc. How much filmmakers get depends on their contracts. Nothing in most cases. Afaik this is different in the US. They don't have rental copies. Anyone can just buy a bunch of DVDs, rent them out and profit.

And I'm not so sure I'd be interested in Netflix even if it was available here. My understanding is that the quality is sh*t.

Dman001

jaykhunter wrote: »

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

I thought the same too, that they pay an over-inflated price for rental DVDs. There was one time you'd see Not For Rental on the DVD covers of Retail DVDs, which I'm guessing was because these DVDs were much cheaper than Rental DVDs. I'm sure it is still written on DVDs, but you'd wonder why more Rental Shops just rent out Retail Discs if there is such a difference in price. It is not as if it would be likely they'll get caught.

Jagle

Sad Professor wrote: »

And I'm not so sure I'd be interested in Netflix even if it was available here. My understanding is that the quality is sh*t.

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

Nothing. I believe for Xtravision to obtain the DVD they're maybe....€200 per disc? And Xtravision make their money back via dvd rental? The number might be off but the deal is the DVD rental companies buy the DVD at an extortionate price and then make it back via rentals.

They buy the rental licence as opposed to the disc. So they pay their one off fee, and once that's been made up for in rentals - say maybe 15-20 - it's solid profit for the rental company. I'd guess if the film-maker had some sort of revenue deal (you can rest assured someone like James Cameron has) they'd make some money off the initial cost Xtravision pay (divvied between the distributor and the studios, I'd imagine). But for the most part film-makers work like any employees - they get paid once, and that's it. Even independent film-makers would tend to get a gross sum when their film's bought up for distribution.

I could be wrong, but that's how I always perceived it as working. Retail DVDs are intended for one consumer only, so they're cheaper to buy for the retailer (who will only ever 'sell' it once). And you'd be surprised how much income a rental DVD can make over say a two - three year life span (when you count in scratches and wear and tear) - you could be looking at hundreds of rentals of a single film. I do have a bit of experience of this due to the questionable actions of employers I used to work for, but can't really go into that

jaykhunter

Jagle wrote: »

Indeed and on that note

Link about how pirates :http://www.switched.com/2009/11/03/music-pirates-also-buy-more-tunes-than-others-poll-finds/

i can illegally have any movie in about 10-15 minutes on my couch, offer me a legal service and if its good enough i might use it like

That's it. Piracy is a way to get content quicker and cheaper than legally. The movie/tv industry can't match the price but they can certainly work to bring shows out quicker and indeed offer a streaming service, making obtaining it easier than piracy. What if TV shows were aired a week BEFORE it was on TV? Or even released at the same time? Challenging the current conventions is an effective way to combat piracy. I still think anything above €1 per episode is robbery. If a physical DVD costs €25, it's free on TV, how is €30 for a digital copy ok? It's also hard to give out about piracy when forces the industry to lower prices of (eg) CDs. The actual amount given to the middle-men (shipping/warehousing etc) of DVDs of a film is a disgrace, something streaming/online download can definitely sort out.

That link from above :

"It's people like Steve, who's 25 and from Essex, that the film industry says are the biggest threat to its future survival and success.
He illegally downloads and uploads around 10 films per week."

Sorry, who downloads/watches 10 films per week? A film critic may do the latter, but I imagine it's in the absolute minute minority.

"....1.4 million times last year. Film industry bosses say it is costing £170million."

How in God's name did they come up with this figure? How are we supposed to believe what you're saying if you're plucking numbers out of the air?

Goldstein wrote: »

No it's not. Equating every illegal download with a lost sale is I'd guess 85%+ inaccurate.

I couldn't agree more. Although I might even go to say 95%+. Most people might give it a look if it's free; but getting someone to plonk down cash? Not a chance in most cases. It's not quite the same thing, but TNA Wrestling get ~1.3 million viewers each week in the US but their Pay-Per-View supershow maybe 13,000 buy it - i.e. 1%. The same supershow (free in UK/Ireland) gets the same ratings as the regular show -- ie people are willing to watch but not to pay.

Goldstein wrote: »

they should keep a tighter rein on the review copies they send out. Individually watermark each one.

I imagine the reason they don't properly watermark each DVD review copy (that gets leaked on the net) because they don't want to catch the culprit. Remember when LOTR : Two Towers got leaked onto the internet, that was an Oscar judge's copy? Yeah they didn't look into that one!

On the subject of DRM, I absolutely can't stand it. I bought it and I should be able to do what I like with it. If the option of only being able to copy it to one iPod or one computer a certain number of times, Piracy is a much more appealing option. Normal people pirate, and pirates also buy movies/dvds/music etc. The trick is to work with technology, maximise availability and affordability.

Dman001

Jagle wrote: »

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

Very little of their library is HD encoded, well what is steamable to Desktops/Laptops. Whether this is different for PS3, I'm not sure. "Comparable to DVD" is not DVD quality either. But if I was to use such a service, I would be using it through my laptop where quality wouldn't be my number one requirement.

jaykhunter

Jagle wrote: »

your understand is rubbish

Steady on mate, no need to be snide. We're all amigos here

Sad Professor

Jagle wrote: »

According to Netflix Tech Support, Netflix's content library is encoded into three bandwidth tiers, in a compression format based on the VC-1 video and Windows Media audio codecs. The lowest tier requires a continuous downstream bandwidth (to the client) of 1.5Mbps, and offers stereo audio and video quality comparable to DVD. The middle tier requires 3Mbps, and offers "better than DVD quality". The highest tier requires 5 Mbps, and offers 720p HD with surround sound audio. As of December 2010, the PS3 is the only device able to stream Netflix at 1080p resolution.


your understand is rubbish

Huh? Your attitude is rubbish. I don't care what you've copy and pasted from the Netflix site or Wikipedia or whatever. What I've read about Netflix online from people that use it is that quality can be very poor and fluctuates a lot depending on bandwidth. It will be great one day, but streaming just isn't there yet IMO.

jaykhunter

Where will this all go? Like next-day on demand services like iTunes where u can download TV shows 24 hours after it airs is growing; maybe films will have simultaneous release in cinemas/blu-ray/streaming..... Will the end service be that we'd see the decline in 'local' TV stations, say Sky 1, Channel 4 etc and the birth of much larger 'internet Global TV stations'? Maybe I could stream ABC or NBC etc over the internet and just pay a subscription to all of their TV content available on instant streaming?

I also think it's hilarious that piracy is driving the growth/progression of the tv/film industry; not the other way around. They're limp-leggedly catching up.

Dman001

jaykhunter wrote: »

That's it. Piracy is a way to get content quicker and cheaper than legally. The movie/tv industry can't match the price but they can certainly work to bring shows out quicker and indeed offer a streaming service, making obtaining it easier than piracy. What if TV shows were aired a week BEFORE it was on TV? Or even released at the same time? Challenging the current conventions is an effective way to combat piracy. I still think anything above €1 per episode is robbery. If a physical DVD costs €25, it's free on TV, how is €30 for a digital copy ok? It's also hard to give out about piracy when forces the industry to lower prices of (eg) CDs. The actual amount given to the middle-men (shipping/warehousing etc) of DVDs of a film is a disgrace, something streaming/online download can definitely sort out.

The Cable companies in the US have a choke hold on the TV Industry. They create the most money for the TV Studios, so they are not willing to change the status quo in fear of upsetting the Cable companies. There was talk of Apple bringing in a TV subscription service, but couldn't get support from the TV Studios, fearing that many will end their Cable subscription in favour of Apple' all-you-can-eat, ad-free subscription model.

seamus

Dman001 wrote:

I thought the same too, that they pay an over-inflated price for rental DVDs. There was one time you'd see Not For Rental on the DVD covers of Retail DVDs, which I'm guessing was because these DVDs were much cheaper than Rental DVDs. I'm sure it is still written on DVDs, but you'd wonder why more Rental Shops just rent out Retail Discs if there is such a difference in price. It is not as if it would be likely they'll get caught.

You'd be suprised. There is a very obvious difference between rental and retail DVDs - trailers and ads.

A business might get away with it for a while until the day they rent it to someone connected to the production company or a holy joe samaritan. Then the big, "For home viewing only message pops up", and a ****storm begins. For example, my wife is an actress, so we would be ultra-sensitive to the protection of artists' rights and pay, and so forth. Let's say we rent a copy of a movie that she was in, and it turns out to be "Home viewing only", I'm fairly sure there would be a discussion over whether or not we should report it. Notwithstanding that the big production companies take huge profits, if a rental shop is using retail DVDs for big productions, then they are also doing the same for small independent productions, who need the money.

It's the kind of thing that if a shop was caught doing just once, it could cause a cascade effect - the movie company might start getting private individuals to rent out DVDs and make a note of whether they're legit or not. Then the movie company builds a case and gives 1,000 examples of copyright breach. The rental company finds themselves with a huge fine to pay and having to remove most of their merchandise from the shelves because it's not legit. In other words, the company is bust.

A small one-off rental shop might get away with it, especially somewhere rural. But a chain store like Xtravision couldn't. They would be caught eventually.

bnt

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that movie and TV studio fail to fully recognise that their content depreciates in value over time. There's no justification in charging full price for a 10-year-old movie or TV show. They're entitled to cover their costs and make some profit, anything more is just exploitation. I know it's not quite as simple as "a fair price will stop piracy", but it would be a start. Like it or not, I don't have to watch any "entertainment" - I could happily spend the rest of my life reading classic books.

Only they (media conglomerates) make much money from "residuals" anyway - not the director, writers or actors, who got paid long ago and won't be getting much more, if anything. Writer Ken Levine, who did a lot of work on MASH, Cheers, Frasier and more, tells the story about a bar in LA called Residuals: when a writer got a check for under $1.00, the bar would take that in payment for a drink. It was a gimmick, of course - a writer wouldn't buy just the one drink - but it happened so often they had to stop accepting the checks.

PS: I play DVDs on the computer in a media player, so I can always access the movie directly from the index. On a computer I can also go direct to the VOB files in the VIDEO_TS directory, look for the biggest ones (i.e. the movie proper) cue them up in my media player and go. All that unskippable stuff would only be a problem if I was using a standalone DVD player.

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

maybe films will have simultaneous release in cinemas/blu-ray/streaming.....

I'm really not a fan of this idea. I like watching grown-up films on the big screen. I'd hate to think that cinema might become totally dominated by theme park crap like Transformers. But if they started doing simultaneous home video/on-demand releases that's exactly what would happen. Maybe that's where we're headed anyway, but I don't like it.

More effort needs to be made to get people back in to the cinemas. And 3D isn't it. Studios need to start making adult films again, and films need to be given a chance to do well. But that's probably like trying to get the genie back in the bottle.

jaykhunter

Going to see TF3 reminded me that I generally hate the cinema experience - moreso the obnoxious kids that think their quips are hilarious and everyone must hear them....or it could be like going to see Psycho in the National Concert Hall where i'm surrounded by the cast of the Last of the Summer Wine.... there has to be a happy medium somewhere

naughto

i have a70 gb download cap a month with vodafone what do they think iam going to be downloading with that amount.

iMuse

naughto wrote: »

i have a70 gb download cap a month with vodafone what do they think iam going to be downloading with that amount.

You could easily hit that if a netflix system existed in Ireland. I would gladly pay a fee each month for such a service but instead people are been forced down the piracy route because of the months of waiting for content to become available.

Otis Driftwood

I download movies quite alot.

In most case its movies that I wouldnt have any other way of seeing other than paying an exorbitant amount of money buying them on ebay.

The thing is though,if I like the movie,I will buy it but Im not willing to take a chance on something that I may end up hating.

There are maybe 3 or 4 production companies in existence whose movies I will always buy without downloading first but they are all small indy companies that are self financing and I know the effort they make to get the money together to make the movies in the first place.

busyliving

A lot of what they complain about is over-hyped in my opinion...

If i'm being honest, the people i know who watch pirated movies are the people who don't go to the cinema anyways...granted pirated movies which have been released on DVD is a big problem, as i haven't brought many DVDs in the last 5 years...maybe 17 DVDs in total.

But the movie industry do cause a few problems themselves, an example of this is J.J.Abrams latest movie has been already released in US, but won't hit Irish cinema screens for another 2 months...now why on earth would you do that, release movies within a week(in different regions) across the world and the likelihood of the pirates doing damage is lessened.

But surly the recession has an effect as well, with people only choosing to go and see good movies, the amount of sh!te movies released over a year is crazy.

But i'm the kind of person who tries to make it to the cinema once a week, even if the movie has got poor reviews, just enjoy the cinema:D

Sad Professor

Worldwide simultaneous releases are certainly for the best in the case of big films like Super 8, but I think I agree with what Goldstein said earlier that if people want to watch poor quality cams of such films then good luck to them. I think DVD and Blu-ray rips are doing more damage. The studios make such a big deal out of cams and telecines of big blockbusters, but they still freely send out thousands DVDs and Blu-rays for Oscar consideration every year which inevitably end up online.

Staggered cinema releases can sometimes favour smaller films though as it gives time for word of mouth to spread. Of course, if they are too staggered then you end up with DVDs/Blu-rays becoming available in one region before the film has even been released theatrically in another.

mystique150

I just paid extra vision to watch "Love and other drugs", I should have been paid to watch it as Pfizer was mentioned every five mins. Some films don't deserve money - I'll happily pay for a good one though!

iMax

Sad Professor wrote: »

I assume the studios/copyright holders get the €200/whatever that Xtravision pay for the rental disc. How much filmmakers get depends on their contracts. Nothing in most cases. Afaik this is different in the US. They don't have rental copies. Anyone can just buy a bunch of DVDs, rent them out and profit.

And I'm not so sure I'd be interested in Netflix even if it was available here. My understanding is that the quality is sh*t.

Not even.

I have extensive experience in this field. I also happen to have a July price-list in my mailbox. Here's a couple of sample prices from the largest wholesaler in Ireland:

The Lincoln Lawyer - €16.01
Limitless - €18
Rango - €25
Sucker Punch - €15.20
Big Momma's House III - €22.50
Hall Pass - €15.20
Unknown - €18

All prices are ex VAT & Delivery. Prices are base price which means they will be discounted with significant quantity.

I would expect Xtravision pay approx. ⅓ - ½ the above price based on quantity ordered. They would also have exclusivity arrangements in place.

I can remember a time when VHS rental titles would have averaged £50 per copy & the libraries would still have their money back in a month based on a £2 per night rental.

For older "catalogue" titles the price is much lower & within two weeks of street date, you could slash about ¼ of the street price of new releases.

Streaming here is prohibitively expensive, I was quoted €300,000 for 750 titles for a year for licence (paid in advance), which works out a little under €8 per title per week cost to me.

Now all I'd need to do is stream each one twice a week to be in profit, but the titles aren't even that new (about two months behind DVD) & I'd have to be streaming every single title twice a week. Big problem with that is the infrastructure we have here in Ireland. We have no-where near the broadband capability required.

Because of that, the DVD market is going to continue here (xtravision are launching an online service in August AFAICR), wether they get the rental model right or not, we've yet to see, they have to be careful not to cannibalise their B&M market.

Netflicks have expressed an interest in entering the european market, but it's unlikely they'd start in Ireland & even if they did, they wouldn't be streaming for the reason above. The cynic in me thinks that the reason XV might be rushing into online (because they don't know how to do it) is so they'll be ripe for a netflix buyout.

To get back to the original question, piracy is a problem, but it's not as big a problem as is made out. It's a way of keeping the overall gross down on lead titles & not paying out the full percentage points that major start/directors/writers would have. Although it can harm an opening gross of a movie ( which is why we now see simultaneous release dates), I think if you are an actual film fan, you'll want to see it in a cinema anyway & not on a 20" monitor.

Incidentally, the major studios are currently trying to terminate their contracts with netflix (& have recently started cancelling streaming rights) as they are loosing too much money on product. They created a monster & now want to kill it.

Dman001

iMax wrote: »

Streaming here is prohibitively expensive, I was quoted €300,000 for 750 titles for a year for licence (paid in advance), which works out a little under €8 per title per week cost to me.

Now all I'd need to do is stream each one twice a week to be in profit, but the titles aren't even that new (about two months behind DVD) & I'd have to be streaming every single title twice a week. Big problem with that is the infrastructure we have here in Ireland. We have no-where near the broadband capability required.

Because of that, the DVD market is going to continue here (xtravision are launching an online service in August AFAICR), wether they get the rental model right or not, we've yet to see, they have to be careful not to cannibalise their B&M market.

Very interesting info, cheers iMax. You can see how some of these start-up Movie Streaming sites struggle and fail with licencing fees like that, on top of Operating costs.

If Xtravision are to bring out some sort of online service, it would want to be subscription based as the Pay-to-Buy has been done. Although, Lovefilm's catalogue of films in the UK is very poor, and I don't think Xtravision will do better.

don ramo

ive been buying VHS and DVDs for years, a lot of them soon after they were released i had over 100 VHSs, and i have over 300 DVDs, i gave the VHSs away as realistically they are worthless, i passed them into a charity auction at a local hall, they fetched E14 and came with a set of draws i bought to hold them which cost me about 20/30 pound back in the day,

so a 20/30 pound case and 100 VHS films which at first day value came to (from an inccurate memory, i cant even remeber how much a new VHS cost) at least 700 pound+, just given away:mad::eek:

so now i have 300 odd DVDs which when newly released were worth about E4k, but are now probably worth 6 maybe 7 hundred quid,

i still buy DVDs but only when there maybe E3 and i might buy one for a fiver if i think its worth it, and TV boxsets i buy when the series is cancelled about 4 or 5 years, more to have the complete collection in one neat little box, i got The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing and OZ recently, thats nearly 300 hours of pure quality for a reasonable E250, why the hell would i pay E20 for a film thats 2 hours long, and already cost me E15 to go see in the cinema 6 months previous,

you cant loose money to illegal downloads when your film has already recovered its cost 10 time over before its even left the cinema, it just dont add up, :mad:

PucaMama

maybe is cinemas were a bit cheaper people wouldnt download illegaly. 9 or 10 euro for 1 ticket. its a disgrace.

iMax

PucaMama wrote: »

maybe is cinemas were a bit cheaper people wouldnt download illegaly. 9 or 10 euro for 1 ticket. its a disgrace.

I originally posted this way back in 2003:

How Cinema Works:

Ok this is how cinema works in Ireland...

The Omnis/Savoy/Screens of this country are owned by the Ward Anderson Group (who also release some films). The rest (including Ster/UGC/UCI) are all classed as "Independents".

Ward Anderson currently account for about 70% of cinema screens (note "screens" not cinemas) in Ireland.

The distributor - fox/warner/uip etc rent the film to the exhibitor for a percentage of the take & a small fixed fee.

This is called a "nut". The nut varies per film, so for example, a star wars movie would have a higher nut than the latest sandra bullock movie (because it's going to take more).

The nut starts out at about (in the event of a starwars) 80%. That is, 80% goes to the distributor in week 1 & 2. This then falls to 70% in week 3 & so on. The nut varies per release so by week four of a film, the distributor may only be taking 5% - 10% with the rest going to the exhibitor. Moreoften than not, there is an agreed timeframe for the exhibition of a film. so they might have agreed a 6 week showing. If this is the case & there is a rash of movies to be released a film will be pulled early & then refunds on the nut will be made.

Regarding food, cinemas make their fixed running costs on these products, they're what pay the rent, staff & utilities. The nut is what provides the profit.

Any other questions ?

Cantona's Collars

Went to see Transformers 3 in the cinema as it's the kind of movie that needs to be seen on the big screen to appreciate the effects and the 3D but the price is a rip-off.

My local cinema closed as it couldn't compete with two new cineplexes open in the county.So a visit to the cinema for me is a 30 mile round trip and most movies aren't worth the hassle to go and see.
Before I'd head to the cinema on average once a week.But these days it's very rare and downloading movies is just so handy and I can watch them in the comfort of my own home on a large led screen.
Another thing is the long wait to see some of the good tv shows from America,the likes of True Blood won't be on tv here until after Christmas if previous form is anything to go by but a quick glance in the tv forum shows how many viewers it has who won't wait that long-me being one.
The Pixar movies are ones that suffer a lot from downloads as we have to wait months to see them over here after their original release in the States.

One thing I've also noticed is that the people downloading aren't just teenagers but couples with kids who simply can't find the time or the money to go to the cinema on a regular basis and the few times they do it's to see a kids movie with their offspring.

PucaMama

iMax wrote: »

I originally posted this way back in 2003:

How Cinema Works:

Ok this is how cinema works in Ireland...

The Omnis/Savoy/Screens of this country are owned by the Ward Anderson Group (who also release some films). The rest (including Ster/UGC/UCI) are all classed as "Independents".

Ward Anderson currently account for about 70% of cinema screens (note "screens" not cinemas) in Ireland.

The distributor - fox/warner/uip etc rent the film to the exhibitor for a percentage of the take & a small fixed fee.

This is called a "nut". The nut varies per film, so for example, a star wars movie would have a higher nut than the latest sandra bullock movie (because it's going to take more).

The nut starts out at about (in the event of a starwars) 80%. That is, 80% goes to the distributor in week 1 & 2. This then falls to 70% in week 3 & so on. The nut varies per release so by week four of a film, the distributor may only be taking 5% - 10% with the rest going to the exhibitor. Moreoften than not, there is an agreed timeframe for the exhibition of a film. so they might have agreed a 6 week showing. If this is the case & there is a rash of movies to be released a film will be pulled early & then refunds on the nut will be made.

Regarding food, cinemas make their fixed running costs on these products, they're what pay the rent, staff & utilities. The nut is what provides the profit.

Any other questions ?

if they took less of a profit, we could pay less for tickets, but afford to go more often.