PDA

View Full Version : Films 'fuel online file-sharing'


ZEROSKULL
07-16-2004, 07:08 AM
File-sharing is booming, with people downloading millions of files despite efforts by the entertainment industry to stop the practice, say experts. Films and other files larger than 100MB are becoming the most requested downloads on networks around the world, said UK net analysts CacheLogic.


More : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3890527.stm

Geta-Ve
07-16-2004, 02:00 PM
no sh*t sherlock?

lol

not really news, well to my ears anyways :)

Paul-Angelo
07-16-2004, 02:35 PM
I always enjoy seeing big blockbuster movies in the theater. Some movies are just meant to be enjoyed on the big screen. I've seen many music stores shut down because of P2P. I just hope this doesn't start happening to movie theaters. Plus seeing movies for free on the internet is just screwing people out of money that they worked hard for 2+ years to bring you those 2-3 hours of enjoyment. If the movie theaters get shut down then the budgets for movies will be much less which means less content, less room for cg.

mummey
07-16-2004, 02:39 PM
...and other files larger than 100MB are becoming the most requested downloads ...
Emphasis mine...

Service packs? Application updates? Linux Distros? There are legit uses too...

but even I recognize that the vast majority aren't.


I DO NOT condone the practice, but bittorrent has made large files such as albums, tv shows, application iso's, and films easy to transport.

It was only a matter of time that this (bittorrent) beat out all the other filesharing methods.

-B

Geta-Ve
07-16-2004, 03:31 PM
bittorrent I'd like to know how to use that.. :p

blizzard uses it too. :)

BiTMAP
07-16-2004, 06:42 PM
bit torrent is a wonderful technoligy. Sadly it IS missused. the creator of bit torrent now works with valve in desiging how the "steam" system works. Its been able to make online gaming a much quicker and "smaller" system. I really think its a breakthrough in technoligy. Just make sure you fragment alot.

heavyness
07-16-2004, 08:33 PM
sidenote : i said this in the other thread about MMORPGs not making money but i hope they can use torrent technology to bring online games off of company servers and spread across the user's bandwidth. sure its great for dl patchs of blizzard's new videos, but if they could do the same for game servers, companies would save $$$ and focus more on bug fixing and new games/addons.

back to the subject, 3 years to late.

teabgs
07-17-2004, 01:37 AM
If the movie theaters get shut down then the budgets for movies will be much less which means less content, less room for cg.

Or it could mean more room for good scripts, better storytelling, and character development. Then maybe people would be willing to pay their money which could be up to $10.50 in some places.

While I agree that people should see the movies in theaters so people get paid, I don't think most movies right now are WORTH what they cost to see in a theater. While I cannot condone downloading films I can understand why a 15 year old would do so. They cant get in legally to R movies for one, and also they may not have the money.

When a movie is good...really good, and give the audience something new, an experience, then I believe they will pay even if they could download it.

elam
07-17-2004, 06:03 AM
I've seen many music stores shut down because of P2P.
Really? So the owners said 'Goddamn Kazaa put me out of business?' Could it be that most music in sold in stores is overpriced garbage? Or that technology has made a record store obsolete?

teabgs is right. Most movies suck. A lot. Going to a movie is starting to resemble watching a really large TV, with all the annoying commercials. Except it costs $10.00 and you can't change the channel.

Zeruel the 14th
07-17-2004, 06:33 AM
BT is fantastic tech. I think the idea can really go places. Maybe one day, when movies really are streamed into the home, right into your lounge room, something like BT can be there easy the burden such a service would put infrastructure.

I've never used Valve's steam. Last i heard it was still crap. I'm against streaming anything. Been that way since RealAudio. Just don't like the idea of not being able to listen/view something off my HD whenever i please. Movies trailers for instance.

I used Edonkey once...or was it Emule. I don't know. I think Mule may have been just another client. I tried to find an Ancient Anime release (gunbuster). Not having much luck on donkey (as well as others). I gave up. Though i heard the License (held by Manga Ent for so many damn years) expired...maybe a re-release on DVD will come from somebody else instead (with a sequel in the works, hopefully so). That'd please me.

These are interesting times. Back when the music industry was supposedly being 'owned'. I thought the Movie industry would pick up its act and move quickly to offer some sort of service to those with Bandwidth. I guess they've been sitting on their arses since then.

Oh well. Best of luck to all sides. I for one Support the file sharing idea. Whatever comes of it.

Para
07-17-2004, 07:04 AM
I've seen many music stores shut down because of P2P.

Actually record companies causes that by themselves: After the audio CD protection methods came into common use, people still bought as much CD:s as usual, but the refunds were up to 40% because those copy protected CD:s didn't work on anything that had something digital (show me a modern cd player without digital display and I show you a flying cow). After a while people learned that it's useless to buy those CD:s since they won't work on their favorite player and stopped buying CD:s.

Same goes with movies. A movie ticket here in Finland costs about 10 euros which is just too much. The price has been going up over the years because people won't go to the movies anymore because the price of the ticket has been going up...I bet you see the problem here.

And TV shows...well, all I can say is that we have four national TV channels and only two of those show foreign series, which are 90% crap with some exceptions like Stargate SG-1 Season 5 which is currently airing here. Because of this people usually talk about P2Ptv to describe what they actually want to see.

PS. BitTorrent is cool.

eks
07-17-2004, 08:30 PM
wired: p2p company not going anywhere (http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64233,00.html/wn_ascii)

and

p2p united (http://www.p2punited.org/)




eks

satanatron
07-18-2004, 03:47 AM
Well if movies were released at the same time globally instead of some of us having to wait months for films that have been released else where.............ie:Hellboy still hasn't made it to the cinemas here yet..nor Chronicles of riddick....

Zeruel the 14th
07-18-2004, 04:14 AM
Well if movies were released at the same time globally instead of some of us having to wait months for films that have been released else where.............ie:Hellboy still hasn't made it to the cinemas here yet..nor Chronicles of riddick....
Heh, Ain't that the damn truth. Whats stopping them? Nothing. Nothing but profit that is. They want to maximise releases to suit the time of year / season. (school holidays for example) I haven't forgotten why they gave the world region coding. That deserved to be cracked and i hope their next one is too (or the next best thing, makers of players not giving a damn and multizoning anyway). Controlling piracy my arse. It was about controlling the market and consumer spending to suit them. I'm not going to shed tears when their next draconian, market controlling protection is made to eat dust.

Cynicism aside. One day we'll look back on this crap and laugh at the RIAA and MPAA. Afterall, weren't they opposed to video and audio cassette tapes? Thats what all the information i could dig up tells me. Are they technophobes or are they just slow in the head? Ah Stuff looking back. I'll laugh at them now!

parallax
07-18-2004, 10:09 AM
High prices cause illegal downloads. period.
BMG also recognizes that now, by lowering their prices. CD 's are 25 bucks in holland, your average ticket at the multiplex is 10 bucks.

The RIAA and MPAA and such, are the media maffia. Especially if you see what methods they use. And dont bring me that "they raised the prices because of illegal downloads"

daevid
07-18-2004, 10:00 PM
1. If you download movies cause you think the films are crap:
- well... why do you need to watch them in the first place? Strange logic...

2. If you think music-cd's are overpriced and don't want to be screwed by record companies:
- don't listen to it.
- try to find/buy music from smaller labels or artists that publish their own music.
- listen to web radio stations, but make sure you chose one that pays "playing fees" to the artists. (I pay about 40$/year to MusicBrigade.com to access thousands of streaming music videos, I'm sure there are a lot others sites as well).

OR

Buy the records anyway because it's probably is worth it after all. Try to remember that those "evil" companies are actually spending a lot of money on finding and promoting artists you would never had heard of otherwise. They are also spending (ie losing) a lot of money on really great artist that never hit the mainstream charts.

3. What's that crap about it's OK for teenagers cause they don't have the money? So, if a kid want's new sneakers it's OK to steal them cause he/she hasn't got the money?

/David

Fasty
07-19-2004, 03:46 AM
So when are they going to wake up and do an ITunes?

Why can't people legally pay for and download movies yet?

Geta-Ve
07-19-2004, 04:01 AM
well you sorta can at divx.com ... but i dunno if you keep the movie..

Anim8rJB
07-19-2004, 06:31 AM
If cd's were $1.50 people would still pirate them 'just because they can'.

Abaddon
07-19-2004, 07:15 AM
Both cd's and movies are seriously over priced. Why, for the sole reason that the companies want to make more money than what they already do. Does the extra cash from those $30 cd's go to the artists? Of course not. Now, that may or may not seem fare, but if an industry raises it's prices too much people will either not use its goods or find another way to get a similar good. Thats realism. Thats market forces.
It seems these days, in the era of modern technology, big companies and even the administrations of certain countries, ie usa, are being caught with their pants down more and more because the people have free access to information over the net.
Its easy for EVERYONE to find out when a certain industry is trying to rip off consumers and by how much, or when a certain President is lying, etc. People dont have to be blind to the facts anymore, and it's causing those in 'power' problems because people dont like being treated without respect.

People these days are more educated, and more well informed. It is the law that should change, not the consumer. Big bussiness has become lazy and over-expectant that the ever-smarter consumer will blindly continue to more extravagent prices for the same goods.

That said, I believe that when a good movie, cd, etc, is released people still pay for it. Earn the respect of the consumer and you will earn your money.

Jhonus
07-19-2004, 08:12 AM
The reason Michael Moore tolerates piracy of his movies is because

a) he knows he will still make a comfortable living
b) he knows it will only make him more popular
and c) since its more popular, more people will see his message... which is the entire point of making the movie in the first place.

this applys to music and other movies aswell.

Geta-Ve
07-19-2004, 09:10 AM
People these days are more educated, and more well informed. It is the law that should change, not the consumer. Big bussiness has become lazy and over-expectant that the ever-smarter consumer will blindly continue to more extravagent prices for the same goods.


Best example ever are the gas prices... they keep going up and people keep paying for them...

peanuckle
07-19-2004, 04:43 PM
THe thing with the gas prices is though you have to buy gas. I'm not going to buy a new vehichle over an extra $.50 a gallon but I'm not going to drive as much. People just aren't going on as many trips as they used too thats the only big change the gas hike has caused.

My view on the movie thing is. DVD's at $20 or less is a good price with all of the special features I find that it is worth it. Services Like Netflix are a really good deal also. You dont have to watch the movie right away and you still end up paying around $5 or less for renting each movie. Which is what I pay at the local video store.

Music has gotten out of control though. Not in the price wise of around $15 but in all of the copy protection crap. I have no problem with a person buying a CD, Going home, Ripping it, Putting it on their Ipod, and Then adding the CD to their CD disk changer. But with all of the copy protection you can rip it or play it in your new 250 Disk CD changer. Thats bullsh*t! I tend to buy music from Itunes. They dont seem to mess with you so much, sure they still have copyprotection but at least the music works.

The Movie industry need to have a store where you could buy a movie for $4.99 - $9.99 and you can download it and have the ability to burn it on DVD so I can watch it on the Big Screen. That way they can get all of their profits with very little cost to them. They wont have to print DVD's or cases nor having shipping costs.

You would then fuel the economy more because people would want broadband to download the movies. And DVD+-R would sell like hot cakes.

pea~

Abaddon
07-19-2004, 07:12 PM
Best example ever are the gas prices... they keep going up and people keep paying for them...
Heh, so true.

Para
07-19-2004, 07:32 PM
THe thing with the gas prices is...*snipped a lot of pricing talk*

Just as a comparison, 1 litre(=0.26 US gallons) of gas costs about 1 euro in Finland. Also, new DVD's are about 20-25 euros (special sets a lot more, for example I've seen all Voyager episodes for 670 euros - insane!) and CD's cost around 20 euros. A single movie ticket is 9 or 10 euros depending on what time you want to see the movie. And one euro is about 1.2 dollars and to top all this, average tax rate here is about 40% of all income.

That's my .02 euro cents...

Geta-Ve
07-19-2004, 07:34 PM
im not sure if thats good or bad... -_-

I suffer from L.A.S.

Jackdeth
07-19-2004, 08:28 PM
Both cd's and movies are seriously over priced. Why, for the sole reason that the companies want to make more money than what they already do. Does the extra cash from those $30 cd's go to the artists? Of course not. Now, that may or may not seem fare, but if an industry raises it's prices too much people will either not use its goods or find another way to get a similar good. Thats realism. Thats market forces.
It seems these days, in the era of modern technology, big companies and even the administrations of certain countries, ie usa, are being caught with their pants down more and more because the people have free access to information over the net.
Its easy for EVERYONE to find out when a certain industry is trying to rip off consumers and by how much, or when a certain President is lying, etc. People dont have to be blind to the facts anymore, and it's causing those in 'power' problems because people dont like being treated without respect.

People these days are more educated, and more well informed. It is the law that should change, not the consumer. Big bussiness has become lazy and over-expectant that the ever-smarter consumer will blindly continue to more extravagent prices for the same goods.

That said, I believe that when a good movie, cd, etc, is released people still pay for it. Earn the respect of the consumer and you will earn your money.
The funny thing is that CDs are one of the few things that hasn't RISEN with inflation over the last 20 years. Before you start thinking that they are ripping you off, maybe you should look back and see what things cost back then compared to today. You might be really surprised. Also, it costs a lot more to promote a band then it did 20 years ago because everyone elses salaries went up WITHOUT adjusting the price of the product. Think about all the crew, studio techs, lawyers, execs, PAs, and promoters who make a lot more than they did 20 years ago. it all adds up really quickly into something that has tight profit magrins.

And then all the "profit" is reinvested into new bands that might never make any money back. You guys all complain about how bad the music scene is these last few years... you should know that maybe you helped make it suck. By taking money from the lables, places like Universal Music or WanerBros fired most of thier bands over the last couple years, and then only signed a tiny precentage of new bands compared to what they did 10 years ago. With less investment cash laying around, they are only signing "sure bets" that can make money... not taking anymore chances on "art." This is a very nasty circle that many downloaders don't know or care about. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Don't think that it doesn't...

And back to the cost issue...Things have a cost, and if you don't like it, then don't buy it. You don't have a "right" to own music or movies... its a luxury that only money can buy. You want a Ferrari, you save your pennys until you can afford one. You don't go and steal one in protest. Things are expensive, and that sucks some times... so get off your asses, make some money, and enjoy it. No deserves a free handout... especially with luxury items.

Jackdeth
07-19-2004, 08:46 PM
Maybe, but not so and elegantly before. :)


**EDIT** To be fair, I think we've all read the "all music/movies sucks thses days so screw them" posts hundreds of times too many as well.

Abaddon
07-20-2004, 05:47 AM
Ya, CD's have been overpriced for years. I remember deciding back when I was teenager that I was not going to get conned into buying overpriced goods anymore. Instead I spend on things more reasonably priced and probably more necassary. My music collection has a lot to be desired but I'm not getting ripped off!

It seems to me though that it's not my job to pay for a music companies investment in new bands. Thats their risk/investment to make, and hopefully the money (their own money!) that they invest in any given band pays off, and they make their money back. It is not my role in life to provide funds to already rich companies so they can expand their business and make more money from me. Thats their job, their risk. I'm not a charity. I get a real impression lately that huge companies can sit on their laurels and think that the law is there to garantee they continue to make money....whether or not they should.

Nor does it cost relatively much to search out new bands.....they usually are sending demoreels to the labels anyway trying to be found. Studio time is quite cheap also, any backyard band can rent a studio for themselves to record at a very reasonable price. Labels have their own studios so it would be free for them anyway. It's the insane movie quality film clips and advertising that is used to cover up mediocre talent takes takes all the money up, while you notice most bands with talent make a point of humble low budget filmclips.

One positive thing about the whole file sharing saga is that it is forcing bands back into the live circuit, so they actually tour and perform to make money.

Digiegg
07-20-2004, 10:17 AM
I still don't get why you guys as artists think "Downloading" is okay.
Music, movies, books... People work their asses off to get their stuff released.
And what do they get for working? People simply clicking and getting it for free.

Out of all the people in the world, we should be the ones who should try to stop pirating.
Think about you working your ass off making a movie, and people just download your
movie for free because they think "it doesn't deserve 10 dollars?"
Come on guys... that's just 2 mc donalds you give up for some film that YOU went to WATCH.
Adults who have stable jobs shouldn't really be complaining about 10 dollars...
Students, like me, get the student admission fee in theaters. At least in Virginia they do.

Sad thing is, this File-Sharing over the Internet will never go away. There is just no way to get rid of it because internet is filled with programmers.
Napsters > Kazaa > BiTorrent > on and on

Our very own future as artists are in the line here. I bet you if there wasn't such big number of people pirating games and movies, there would be ALOT more jobs out there now.

Just my thoughts.

Cman
07-20-2004, 12:18 PM
Heh, Ain't that the damn truth. Whats stopping them? Nothing. Nothing but profit that is. They want to maximise releases to suit the time of year / season. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?
Shouldn't they, and you, release projects to maximum effect? If you knew Company A and B were definitely hiring in September and willing to pay for your kind of work, would you send in your demo reel in October? Why would you do that? Why should they when they know the various markets?

Why should a Hollywood distributor release a "summer" pic in Australia in the winter?

Not to mention that many Hollywood films get completed right before release, so they still have to do either dubs or sub-titles before sending it overseas.
Lastly, many film budgets can't afford to print 10,000 copies of their film and distribute to every world theater, and lock in a theater to project it. It's simply too expensive to do all at once.

Films and music are unique in that one can consume to product without destroying the product - so it seems like there's no damage done to the creators... but we all know there is.

Buying and eating food at a restaurant, you wouldn't just walk out because you only liked the peas. You wouldn't refuse to pay for the anything but the coke becuase it tasted like crap - eventhough you ate it all.
How about ordering a pizza online, then after you get it you refuse to pay because you only liked one slice and thought th rest was burned, but you keep the whole pizza.

Why should one be able to dl an entire album, then justify not paying for it because you only liked one song?
Why should one be able to dl an entire movie, burn it to DVD and "own" it, and say, "boy I'm glad I didn't pay for this movie, I only liked the first half."?

btw, if you're at a movie theater and you're hating the first 15-minutes or so of a movie, I bet you can leave and demand your money back.
Many record stores let you preview an album in the store, so you don't have to buy it if you don't like it.
Just like one song? Get it on itunes or something.

percydaman
07-20-2004, 12:48 PM
the problem with the argument stating that if you dont like the music, its price, or the color of its cover, etc and decide not to buy it, thats fine its your right. And thats probably alot of the reason that sales are down. Where the problem is, is that the RIAA and such will just attribute it to pirating instead of the reasons stated above. So they get a free ride in the press and in congress and such, instead of having to face up to their mistakes and problems.


I just wish they would develop unbreakable protection that still allowed their product to be used fairly. Yes I live in a dreamworld.

Cman
07-20-2004, 01:23 PM
the problem with the argument stating that if you dont like the music, its price, or the color of its cover, etc and decide not to buy it, thats fine its your right. And thats probably alot of the reason that sales are down. Where the problem is, is that the RIAA and such will just attribute it to pirating instead of the reasons stated above. So they get a free ride in the press and in congress and such, instead of having to face up to their mistakes and problems.


I just wish they would develop unbreakable protection that still allowed their product to be used fairly. Yes I live in a dreamworld.
Except that if sales are down for Britney Spears album, yet they see that her album was DL 100,000 times through some server or another, how can you say they didn't lose out on at least a percentage of 100,000 sales?

I will grant that a good percentage might listen though it one time, hate it, and never listen to it again. That is definitely not a lost sale.
But I bet that most would have bought it had there been no internet to steal the entire thing for free.

Jackdeth
07-20-2004, 04:50 PM
It seems to me though that it's not my job to pay for a music companies investment in new bands. Thats their risk/investment to make, and hopefully the money (their own money!) that they invest in any given band pays off, and they make their money back. It is not my role in life to provide funds to already rich companies so they can expand their business and make more money from me. Thats their job, their risk. I'm not a charity. I get a real impression lately that huge companies can sit on their laurels and think that the law is there to garantee they continue to make money....whether or not they should.

Nor does it cost relatively much to search out new bands.....they usually are sending demoreels to the labels anyway trying to be found. Studio time is quite cheap also, any backyard band can rent a studio for themselves to record at a very reasonable price. Labels have their own studios so it would be free for them anyway. It's the insane movie quality film clips and advertising that is used to cover up mediocre talent takes takes all the money up, while you notice most bands with talent make a point of humble low budget filmclips.
. Your post really made no logical sense at all. You claim that you don't want to be a charity... but then demand that the company be the charity instead. What do you want? Should every product on the face of the earth strip the R&D, marketing, and profit from the price of the product before selling it?? Is this Star Trek where money has no meaning anymore? If there is no money to be made off of hard work, there will be no products created anymore. We might as all go live in caves again.

The point of selling things is to make money!!!!!! As much as you can... and as much as the market will allow. To even make the suggestion that companies shouldn't be passing down thier costs onto the buyer shows a total and utter ignorace to the entire concept of economics. I'm not trying to be mean, but are you in junior high or something?? How can you even make such brash and misguided posts? I can only hope that its you youth and inexperience that is clouding your thoughts. With your logic, maybe the companys should also strip off all employee costs as well... and that way we all work for free. That would be fun. :rolleyes:

If you don't like something, don't buy it. If you can't afford something, then work harder to get the money. Thats how the world works... and perhaps you need to get a better understanding of that.

Abaddon
07-20-2004, 07:45 PM
Woha, lookout! I didnt mean to send you on a rampage there... :thumbsup:



If you don't like something, don't buy it. If you can't afford something, then work harder to get the money. Thats how the world works....
And that does just about sum up the world, for some. The buying and selling of merchandise.

Anyway, I think you chose to take the extreme of all I was saying, I didnt realise passions were running so high. Someone very close to me used to work at a label, and I have many friends in bands of various success. Its curious to know that many of the musicians themselves have a positive view on the whole file sharing debarcle, and strangely many have something on their mind other than massive amounts of money. While I havent actually decided where I stand on the whole issue yet, I have heard quite a few damnable things about big labels. More and more artists who have the money are making their own labels because the costs arent so massive after all. File sharing has also been good for indi labels, and those who cant compete with the massive advertising budget of the big companies. Many already independant labels are now growing dramatically because they endorse file-sharing and use it to advertise their product. P2P has also seriously increased the size of crowds turning up to concerts which is a much needed boost to the live circuit, hence improving the 'careers' of the actual artists themselves.
Btw, the music industry in America is recently been under investigation about if it has been illegally discouraging the discounting of CDs and other monopolistic practices.

In anycase, like anything it can be argued both ways, and I personally arent that interested to argue it at all, and how all this affects movies I have no idea. All I was originally trying to say was that maybe the bigshakers in the industry are going to have to change to fit the market rather than the people changing to fit the industry. There is still a market, just a different market. The internet isnt going anywhere, and they are going to have to channel their anger in a different direction.

t-man152
07-20-2004, 08:16 PM
I am sure many of you use itunes to download music legally. itunes although it has changed the way people buy their music it is still screwing the artists over. the same way that the record companies used too.


People are paying for songs on the iTunes Music Store because they think it's a good way to support musicians. But iTunes misses a huge opportunity. Instead of creating a system that gets virtually all of fans' money directly to artists-- finally possible with the internet-- iTunes takes a big step backwards. Apple calls iTunes "revolutionary" but record companies are using the service to force the same exploitive and unfair business model onto a new medium.


http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

PureFire
07-21-2004, 01:06 AM
If you are gullable enough to thing they are losing money from movie piracy then have a look at these figures......losing money?...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

Jackdeth
07-21-2004, 01:18 AM
If you are gullable enough to thing they are losing money from movie piracy then have a look at these figures......losing money?...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide
Are you are gullable enough to think every movie is a hit... and that some huge profits can be wiped out by one or two flops? Most movies barely break even, or take years to fianlly generate a profit. Don't let the numbers trick you too much.

And it seems that most people are confusing the words "losing" with "going broke." Sure the studios aren't poor, but the fact is that if people are getting the "benift" of a product without paying for it, then that is really unfair. And those lost pennys do add up. Think about the poor local theater in China that needed the cash, but is hurting because of sidewalk selling piracy.

There soooooooo many factets to this industry that ripples down further than most people know. It goes from the actors all the way down to the guy who sells the polish for the floors in a theather. Don't underestimate how many mouths need to be feed.


**EDIT** Also, people get blinded by big numbers. Why do you some of you think that just because a studio/lable made 100 million dollars, that losing 5-10 million is okay for them? Maybe its because most people have no real idea that profit margins are usually only 5-18% on most products. So priacy loses comes right out of the profit... where it hurts the most.

Imagine if someone you didn't know took money right out of your hand and told you that you are already too rich and that you won't miss the money? How would that make you feel?

FUG1T1VE
07-21-2004, 02:28 AM
Imagine if someone you didn't know took money right out of your hand and told you that you are already too rich and that you won't miss the money? How would that make you feel? better yet, what would you do if you work for 3 months day in day out to make your killer demo reel, and render out some images post them online and here comes this person who takes your reel and images and sells it to someone else. I mean you didnt loose money but someone made money out of your time. What would you do then? Would you say, blah let them take it?

Basically consumers and producers make the world go round. Someone produces a tasty chicken, I consume it. I produce computer generated images, a studio or person consumes it. They pay me I pay them.

PureFire
07-21-2004, 02:55 AM
Those figures are gross boxoffice earnings, which proves people ARE going to the theatres and watching movies they like. If a second rate movie doesnt break even its because its a crap movie and people dont wanna see it, which has been the case since movies were born.

The movie industry is claiming people are pirating rather than spend their money at theatres. I say that isnt the case.

The main thing that isnt talked about by the movie industry is the the fact that most people who do pirate a movie probably would never have gone to see it anyway because they cant afford to, so they are adding up loses that arent even there.


Oh and here in Australia, where music CD piracy im sure occurs, had the biggest sales figure of CD's last year to date. But that isnt talked about is it....

leigh
07-21-2004, 03:01 AM
If cd's were $1.50 people would still pirate them 'just because they can'.
I totally agree. Why would people pay even $1.50 when they can get it for free? Freeloaders and thieves will always be freeloaders and thieves. Would theft, shoplifting and burglaries cease if the price of EVERYTHING came down? Nope. If people can get things for free instead of paying, there will always be some people who will do so. That's just how some people are.

This whole argument of kids do it because they don't have the money to buy it is utter crap. When I was a teenager I simply saved up to buy my CDs (I have been collecting them since I was 12) and to go to watch films. Why don't kids do that now? Because now they can steal it with little chance of getting caught. Back in my day, stealing meant shoplifting. Now, that's not necessary - downloading files feels much safer than stealing from a shop. I think this whole non-tangible side of it has a lot to do with it becoming so socially accepted to download music, but it's still no excuse for such activities.

As for films, so what if you go and watch something and it's a crap film? I see crap films all the time, but I don't see the point in wasting energy complaining that I wasted my money. When you go to the theatre, it's simply a risk that you take. If you don't want to take that risk, then stay home and watch the telly instead.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the means for buying music, film tickets, etc is not a god-given right, it's a luxury that you have to pay for. If you can't afford it, then you'll just have to save up for it. Helping yourself to stuff that everyone else has to pay for just because you think you're entitled to it is dishonourable. This freeloader attitude is really saddening.

leigh
07-21-2004, 03:05 AM
The main thing that isnt talked about by the movie industry is the the fact that most people who do pirate a movie probably would never have gone to see it anyway because they cant afford to, so they are adding up loses that arent even there.
People always say this, but the point is that the person watched it anyway. And therefore should have paid for it, just like everyone else who paid.

And in any case, I am sure that a lot of people can afford it, but since they can get it for free, they figure that why should they pay anything when they can get it for nothing (as I mentioned in my previous post). Freeloaders have been around since the dawn of man, but these days the Internet makes it very very easy for them to get their hands on things that they should be paying for.

Jackdeth
07-21-2004, 03:08 AM
Those figures are gross boxoffice earnings, which proves people ARE going to the theatres and watching movies they like. If a second rate movie doesnt break even its because its a crap movie and people dont wanna see it, which has been the case since movies were born.
The movie industry is claiming people are pirating rather than spend their money at theatres. I say that isnt the case.
The main thing that isnt talked about by the movie industry is the the fact that most people who do pirate a movie probably would never have gone to see it anyway because they cant afford to, so they are adding up loses that arent even there.
. Did you read your post? First you basically say that "people AREN'T pirating, and they are spending their money at the theaters," and then you follow up with "people ARE pirating, but those people wouldn't have gone to the theaters anyways." So which one is it?

Even poor, poor people have money for things that they really want. If someone really wanted to see a movie, they have to make up thier mind if it is worth thier money. If they can't afford it, then they shouldn't go. You don't have a "right" to see a movie. Its a luxury. A pure luxury. And just because you are broke doesn't make it okay... and just because you are broke doesn't mean you can't afford to see a movie if it is that important to you. Even if someone didn't buy 20 pirate DVDs, but instead bought just 1 legit DVD... then that is a real number that has to be counted. And if you added up thoese single DVD sales up over the entire world... that becomes billions really fast.



** EDIT**

Dam, Leigh beat me to it....:)

PureFire
07-21-2004, 04:28 AM
Did you read your post? First you basically say that "people AREN'T pirating, and they are spending their money at the theaters," and then you follow up with "people ARE pirating, but those people wouldn't have gone to the theaters anyways." So which one is it?

Even poor, poor people have money for things that they really want. If someone really wanted to see a movie, they have to make up thier mind if it is worth thier money. If they can't afford it, then they shouldn't go. You don't have a "right" to see a movie. Its a luxury. A pure luxury. And just because you are broke doesn't make it okay... and just because you are broke doesn't mean you can't afford to see a movie if it is that important to you. Even if someone didn't buy 20 pirate DVDs, but instead bought just 1 legit DVD... then that is a real number that has to be counted. And if you added up thoese single DVD sales up over the entire world... that becomes billions really fast.



** EDIT**

Dam, Leigh beat me to it....:)

Its not that hard to understand. Not everyone goes to the movies, some do, some dont.
Of the ones that dont, you cant say thats a direct loss to cinema takings, because they never would have gone in the first place. Thats my point.

Oh and im not in any way condoning piracy, im merely stating what is being claimed as a loss isnt exactly true.

Cman
07-21-2004, 05:00 AM
The main thing that isnt talked about by the movie industry is the the fact that most people who do pirate a movie probably would never have gone to see it anyway because they cant afford to, so they are adding up loses that arent even there.


. But it is a loss.
If a person dl the movie and watches it and never pays to rent, buy, or see in a theater, then they've stolen it.

What difference if a person watch a movie on their computer or in a movie theater?
With your argument you could just walk into a theater and watch the movie without paying, then you could also say "they are adding up loses that aren't even there". Afterall, your argument would go, you're sitting in a seat no one paid for so they aren't losing anything. The same could go for music concerts. If they have unsold seats, why don't they just give them away? Afterall, since it never sold before the show started they would only be "adding up loses that aren't even there" because no one paid for the seat.

It's a bogus argument.

EDIT:
BTW, perhaps you are unaware that the theater takes 1/2 the price of the movie ticket?
Did you know that? When you pay $10, only $5 goes to "Paramount" and $5 goes to that AMC theater you're attending...

Not only do the theaters get 1/2 the movie ticket cost, but also ALL the concessions. So when you see a movie made $100,000,000.00 half of that went to the movie theaters and only 1/2 goes to the distributor. So now that movie that cost $75,000,000 to get "in the can" has made back $50,000,000 to the distributor even though it grossed $100,000,000 - a $25 MILLION LOSS! Then the distributor must pay back loans on the film prints, advertising, etc etc and then the production company get's paid and pays their above-the-line people and their loans and interest, and then they have to pay for DVD distribution and lawyers to review those contracts, and printing for those DVDs and distribution for the DVDs, etc etc etc.

This is all why movies often only "break even".

urgaffel
07-21-2004, 08:39 AM
For those who complain that cds are too expensive, there are two ways to find cheap music: used cd stores and online. If I want to buy a new shiny cd in a store, I'd have to pay 27USD. That's more than I'm prepared to pay, no matter how good it is... And the likelyhood of finding that new shin cd used is very very small, so you go to either the cheap store (every city has a few of those, you know the kind, independent stores in the not-so-expensive (or in some cases, fairly expensive) areas that somehow sell new cds cheaper than everybody else) and pay somewhere around 19-22USD. Sure, it isn't cheap, but it's cheapER. A dollar saved is a dollar earned you know? Then there're the used cd shops. I'm pretty sure more than half of my cd collecition comes from used cd stores, about 12USD/cd. Depending on your luck, you can get fairly new cds for even half of that.

As for movies, if you really want to see it when it comes out, go to the cinema. If not, wait for it to come out on rental, it's usually only a few months anyway. You can find cheap rentals if you know where to look...

Kion
07-21-2004, 09:49 PM
I blame the recording industry first for not grasping the new technology, not learnig how to work with it, for trying to fight it, and for putting out crappy music. I think the public feels cheated to buy a cd for 15 bucks with only one good song on it. Also for not releasing music that people want to hear, so people go and steal it. I found songs online that i could not find anywhere becuase it was out of print or, some music company decides not to release it. I do agree there are some people who just stock pile mp3's, but i don't think ,and there is evedence to prove this ,that the music industry is falling becuase of illegal downloads. Becuase people aren't buying music, you just can't assume that the they downloading it illegally. Maybe the cd sucks. maybe people are tired of the disposable music stars, that are good one year and the next year the music industry says you should like someone else, this is the sound you are supposed to like. I hate mtv, ok next rant

As for movies there have been more blockbuster hits recently than ever before, and with sales of dvd's they aren't hurting. Most of the movies that do bad in theatre's suck, and no amount of downloading can save that. As for movie ticket prices it did not stop people from seeing shrek, ferrenhite 911, spiderman, i robot, hell boy, LOTR trilogy, pixar films, matrix trilogy etc, If the film is good people will go to watch it. My advice to the music and movie industry STOP MAKING CRAPPY PRODUCTS!

Jackdeth
07-22-2004, 01:42 AM
If the products (music/movies) are so bad, then why are some many people downloading then? There must be something that they like... Hmmmm...

sundialsvc4
07-22-2004, 01:55 AM
Plus seeing movies for free on the internet is just screwing people out of money that they worked hard for 2+ years to bring you those 2-3 hours of enjoyment. If the movie theaters get shut down then the budgets for movies will be much less which means less content, less room for cg.
Personally, I interpret all of this file-sharing simply to mean that the demand for entertainment products is vastly greater than the industry's ability and/or willingness to service it. The demand is huge, yet the delivery-methods currently offered by the industry are insufficient. Potential customers are therefore taking matters into their own hands, albeit illegally, and giving themselves what they want, without waiting for the industry to catch up.

I don't think that people download material because it is without cost, but because they want to consume the product in some different way. Or they object to the prices being charged vs. the package they receive. (The "$17 CD for one song" argument.)

All of these are opportunities, not threats. True, the customer is forcing change instead of simply asking for it, but the demand is there. Look how many "out of print" songs were voraciously traded and thus consumed on the original Napster? Record labels had proclaimed those songs worthless, old hat, no-demand... and there it was, demand! Demand that had always been there, but never served.

If you're a conventional radio station, a video rental store, or even a conventional CD/Record store, you deserve to be frightened. "Reinvent yourself, or perish, I don't really care which. If you perish, there will be others who were more savvy than you."

Imagine what could be! No more "six major radio station formats," playing the same old schlock. Imagine hundreds of categories, all listener defined, and virtual-communities of music lovers buying and yes perhaps swapping songs, but doing it through the Internet and paying royalties fair-and-square. Why hasn't someone finished doing this yet? Can't anyone out there think beyond the jewel-box? :thumbsup:

ntmonkey
07-22-2004, 01:58 AM
If the products (music/movies) are so bad, then why are some many people downloading then? There must be something that they like... Hmmmm...
Maybe it's so that 35 year old male Britney Spears fans won't have to face the clerk and endure the embarrassment of purchasing an album made by a pop queen. :D

Not that it would make it any more righteous to pirate music, but it wouldn't bother me to see that talentless hack of a teenie-bopper slip into oblivion. Too bad her image is so entwined with so many people's livelihood that my wish won't ever come true. *sigh*

Plus, it's also bad business antagonizing the very people who buy your products. Faults are at both ends.

peace,

Lu

Kion
07-22-2004, 05:16 AM
If the products (music/movies) are so bad, then why are some many people downloading then? There must be something that they like... Hmmmm...

I think people do it becuase they can, its easy, I know guys that will go to a movie, download when they get home, and then go buy the dvd. It is stealing but people want it now. Its exactly what sundialsvc4 is saying. There is a demand and the record industry is not filling it. What they should have done is looked at this new format and say damn millions of people downloading music, its cheaper distribution, how can i make money off it. Hmmm maybe I'll buy the mp3 copyright and liscence it out myself hmmm thats a good idea. Instead of "stop the downloading, I'll sue!" People don't care they just want the music.


If i want to hear a cd that was released in 88 i should be able to hear ,it its art, but the record companies treat it like property(they do own the masters) For years the music industry has dictated what we hear and now instead of listening to Brittany Spears like the record industry wants me to do what they paid million dollars for me to do, i say no, i'm gonna listen to some underground guy. they lose money. why do u think itunes and the ipod are so succesful that says more than anything else. The record industry should be working with technology just like how the movie industry works with digital satellite , movies on demand, net flix, dvd hd-dvd etc. The movie industry is on top of the game. The record industry has been the same since it started, its an old dog.

Every new format that comes out the record companies have tried to stop it, when radio was out "ohh people won't buy records" when you could record on cassettes and i specifically remember this" oh people are going to stop buying music" and especially cd burning " ohh people are going to stop buying music" its a load of crap.

To add that the same thing happened when Vhs came out" ohh people won't go to the movies anymore" Now studios count on vhs dvd sales to pull them out of the red when their movie flops " we'll make it back on dvd sales"

RayenD
07-22-2004, 08:18 AM
Most people who download content from internet for free would never buy it. Doesn't matter if it is a movie, music, game, program etc.

Lots of those people are collectors. They download and never watch it, listen to it, use it. They do that because it is free and easy to collect and you can tell your friends that you have 300,400,1000 movies on cd and be cool.

My friends call me freak because I never downloaded any movie from internet and I have maybe one or 2 commercial mp3 on my HD (which I use for guitar playing practicing).

I am lucky because I am more into older movies and music (because I am old :) )and you can buy them rather cheap. You can get whole Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin discography for small money.

Cman
07-22-2004, 01:57 PM
I certainly agree that the movie and music industry, especialy music, need to be more aggressive in using the new technologies.
I suppose in a way it's like outsourcing - it's something that just can't be stopped.
Eventually the vast majority of sales will be measured off online-sales and all music stores will be dead.

I'm not to sure theaters will die, only because we still go watch live action Theater - and I don't know that anything in the home will be as immersive as a 60-foot screen and NOT being in the home.

sundialsvc4
07-22-2004, 02:46 PM
A friend of mine was part of creating one of the very best bluegrass albumns ever made. It was almost self-produced in the early 1960's and promptly went out-of-print. Yet when original Napster was out there, it received thousands of downloads. The trouble was, the only trouble was IMHO, that no royalties were being collected or paid. Other than that, the demand which the record-company claimed did not exist... was right there! Along with comments like, "I've been looking for this everywhere!"

It is very expensive to print, package, label and distribute CDs. Artists, until Prince made his bold move, not only 'had no choice' to put up with what the Record Labels decreed, they were charged for those expenses! The "expenses," which were of course "anything the RL decided they should be," were taken out of the royalties so that many artists found themselves in debt to their labels. So there was a whole lot of abuse going on, in addition to this clunky distribution system. (Did you know that when The Rolling Stones sing I Can't Get No Satisfaction, they can't get no royalties?! Yessir, they're singin' it for free.)

I own, literally, several thousand CDs. I'm busy transferring that material to hard drives. Much easier to work with; no loss of quality. There really is no question ... no question at all ... in this consumer's mind of whether or not music, movies, and so-forth 'should be paid for.' Of course they should; and they are. But... all of this intellectual property is now "transmittable," and "able to be stored in a small versatile package," and consumers demand that. They demand it so much that they're usurping the once-holy position of the Record Label and doing it themselves.

The Record-Label now finds itself: technologically obsolete. Pushed from their lucrative position, which they shamelessly exploited for so, so long, out into the cold streets. And that is what they are really fighting; what they are really afraid of.

I give them no sympathy at all. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. As they say in Chicago, "He had it comin'. He had it comin'..." Now: change, or perish. I really don't care which.

parallax
07-23-2004, 08:17 AM
I've bought several albums the last year PURELY based on me hearing it only when i had downloaded some tracks. A good friend of mine literally buys EVERY album he likes, while he probably first downloaded them. And i'm talking about 10 albums a month. If thats not proof of concept, i don't know what is. Try buying CD's and DVD's for 200% of the US price, then we'll talk again. I'm paying for your CD's overhere. Bertelsmann has already shown us prices CAN go down. If prices were cut by 50%, i'd buy 3 instead of 1. And don't give me that crap of CD"s are expensive to make. I can get perfect deals for only 500 pieces that will knock you off your feet. I think the large companies just have lost their efficiency, and some people are getting mad-rich over the backs of both the artists and the consumer.
There is ZERO proof of downloading cause a drop in sales. For every piece of research there is another one disproving it. But then again, the people who are sceptical aren't backed by mega-media moguls controlled by powerfull lobbyists.

End of story.

rawshark
07-24-2004, 05:14 PM
Sorry if this is old news but in my glance through the thread I didn't notice it mentioned so far:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/06/technology/cd_sales/index.htm

rawshark
07-24-2004, 05:34 PM
...oh and this is a good article on the realities of being signed to a major label, by Nirvana's producer Steve Albini

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

creative destructions
07-24-2004, 05:37 PM
I think its time the music industry spread music to another format. Why carry a cd player, when iPods are half the size and have 5 times the battery life? People don't like the idea of buying a cd, ripping a cd, then download the music to their portable music player. Why go through the hassle when you can cut a few steps. It's like paying money for more work. I don't download music, but that's the idea.

Cman
07-25-2004, 02:38 AM
...oh and this is a good article on the realities of being signed to a major label, by Nirvana's producer Steve Albini

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html And if you look at that guys numbers, the "music industry" is mostly Agents, that get the contracts, Managers, that get the gigs, Studio Space, to record the music, Music Video, to advertise the album. not that unusual a set of expenses for a band, I wouldn't think.

The only space the band really gets "screwed" is on CD sales. But even then, that's not really abnormal. Most retail is 300% markup on wholesale - which is why they can have a 50% off sale and still make a profit. So a 100% profit on essentially retail sale is not that abnormal. Granted they could cut their price, but so could Best Buy or any music outlet.
Remember, the Record Co. is selling teh CDs at $6.50, but most retail outlets the CDs I've seen cost $12 to $18. The retailer is charging MORE than 100% what the CD is sold to them for!

I'm not saying the profit margins are aren't unseemly, just nothing I'm surprised about.
But hopefully the prices will begin to plummet as they compete with iTunes and the like.

btw, great little article.

evo_supra
07-26-2004, 01:12 PM
Actually record companies causes that by themselves: After the audio CD protection methods came into common use, people still bought as much CD:s as usual, but the refunds were up to 40% because those copy protected CD:s didn't work on anything that had something digital (show me a modern cd player without digital display and I show you a flying cow). After a while people learned that it's useless to buy those CD:s since they won't work on their favorite player and stopped buying CD:s.

Same goes with movies. A movie ticket here in Finland costs about 10 euros which is just too much. The price has been going up over the years because people won't go to the movies anymore because the price of the ticket has been going up...I bet you see the problem here.

And TV shows...well, all I can say is that we have four national TV channels and only two of those show foreign series, which are 90% crap with some exceptions like Stargate SG-1 Season 5 which is currently airing here. Because of this people usually talk about P2Ptv to describe what they actually want to see.

PS. BitTorrent is cool.
*Holds up my Beer to ya* Couldnt agree more dude

parallax
07-27-2004, 08:00 AM
And also, copy protection on audio CD's is ILLEGAL.

nojius
07-27-2004, 09:18 AM
Internet piracy is just all hype anyway when I go to the local mall I still see as many people buying cds as ever (if people like a band or song they will buy it on cd ).As with movies a crappy little window with poor quality video and audio will never replace A dvd with all the extras avilable in full surround sound and picture perfect quality you can watch on your couch. No sir I will keep buying the overpriced Dvd's and Cd's simply because they are better and I dont Have to wait 4 hours till the downloads finished only find out its something completely different.


P.s I dig Filesharing

Zeruel the 14th
07-27-2004, 09:22 AM
One way or another. Downloading is the future.

I remember reading ages ago that the MPAA were going to approach the p2p 'problem' proactively before it really started to do harm. I foolishly believed they'd invest in researching p2p as a possible distribution method. This was when the RIAA was really hissing about napster.

Apparently, they've done jack all. I haven't read anything regarding such ventures, research etc. (If someone has a link. I'd like to be corrected)

In a a way, who can be suprised. The likes RIAA / MPAA were against such technology like VCRs and Audio Cassette tapes. Yet in the end they didn't lose money. They made MORE money. Its because of Videos that there even was a direct to video market (complete with its gems and crap).

I'm beginng to think their lot is the kinda that doesn't like technology until they are nice and ready for it. I bet they could happily wait for 20-30 years if things weren't forced onto them. Are they blind, unimaginative or just plain stupid? They should be first to embrace new tech. If they'd open their eyes they'd realise they could make more money. The least the could do is look back on some of the stuff they tried to stop.

I for one still wonder why i can't go to shop and pick and choose the tracks and artists i want and have a custom cd made. if such services exist (or ever existed), I've never ever set eyes upon one.

Also, if anyone has done any looking into CD mass production they'd realise that the process is anything but expensive. In the area of mere CENTS to produce a single cd. And such facilities are capable of completing a large chunk of a production run in a day.

As for CD audio protection. I say boooo to that. About as much fun as playing old games where you had to turn to some page in the manual to get a code or answer a question but the pages were hard to read because they were made 'photocopy' proof (ie, near black in some cases)

Jackdeth
07-27-2004, 06:37 PM
To say "file sharring will always be there so why fight it," is just as dumb as saying "terrorism will always be there, so why fight it."

A "wrong" that is very common place dosen't somehow become a "right" just because it happens all the time. If that logic was applied to other aspects of life, as many of you do so conviently with music/movie/software downloads, this would be a very messed up world were there would be less motivation for people to speand money and create new things if the "consumers" just "demand" everything for free.

It is wrong, and the people holding the copyrights have the right to fight it. You may disagree, but you also don't own the copyright... so how would you ever really understand what it means to have it infringed?? This is just a simple case of people making up excuses to justify a lifestyle of getting whatever they can for free.

KolbyJukes
07-27-2004, 06:50 PM
To say "file sharring will always be there so why fight it," is just as dumb as saying "terrorism will always be there, so why fight it."
Just wait, soon you'll see commercials from the RIAA and MPAA with Osama Bin Laden watching movies downloaded from Kazaa....cause you know File Sharing supports Terrorist Activity...

Anyway, these days I buy like 12 DVDs a week and a couple CDs, I'm a real consumer whore...

I don't have any objections to filesharing though...

-Kol

parallax
07-27-2004, 07:00 PM
Sir yes sir!

Kion
07-27-2004, 07:09 PM
It is wrong, and the people holding the copyrights have the right to fight it. You may disagree, but you also don't own the copyright... so how would you ever really understand what it means to have it infringed?? This is just a simple case of people making up excuses to justify a lifestyle of getting whatever they can for free.

I do agree about people infringing on their copyrights is worng. But I find it funny that some of the musicians that speak out about copyright violations, and downloading don't own lyrics(masters) to there own song. (who's your daddy?)

mummey
07-27-2004, 07:09 PM
Just wait, soon you'll see commercials from the RIAA and MPAA with Osama Bin Laden watching movies downloaded from Kazaa....cause you know File Sharing supports Terrorist Activity...
You forgot the part where Bin Laden is playing the movies on his computer which is running Red Hat or SuSe, because everyone knows that using Linux is "helping the terrorists win".

-B

Cman
07-27-2004, 07:15 PM
I remember not so long ago an artist from these very pages had a high-rez image online in a Gallery that was "shared" by a "graphics card company" and used in their advertising, no questions asked and no payments made.

Seems that they just downloaded the image and used it.
Using you guy's argument - that artist certainly had nothing to complain about right? Afterall, why should he get paid, or his lawyer or business partners, that help him promote his artwork?

mummey
07-27-2004, 07:15 PM
It is wrong, and the people holding the copyrights have the right to fight it.
I agree. The rights that holders are promised should be enforced. I also feel that those rights sould not be abused, and those holders should not abuse our political system to extend those rights wherever they see fit (Yes, I'm talking to you Senator Hatch.)

In addition, I feel there are some fair use rights that sould be guaranteed unconditionally (Sorry Mr. Valenti), and that all non-classified government work be available in the public domain. This isn't too much to ask. Is it?

-B

Jackdeth
07-27-2004, 08:37 PM
I do agree about people infringing on their copyrights is worng. But I find it funny that some of the musicians that speak out about copyright violations, and downloading don't own lyrics(masters) to there own song. (who's your daddy?)
That is true. When you sign a contract.. thats the deal... for better or for worse. No one put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign a contract. (Expect back in the 80's with gansta rap maybe :shrug: )

If you want to own the songs, then don't expect someone else to put up millions of dollars up front to help you then. Its a very simple concept. You pay for something, then you own it.

When Fox Studios hires us to make some movie effects for them, they own it, not me. They put up the cash, I sign a contract, and they walk away with everything. A deal is a deal.

CGTalk Moderation
01-18-2006, 05:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.