SheepFactory
03-04-2003, 04:50 PM
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-munoz3mar03,0,5407086.story?coll=cl%2Dhome%2Dmore%2Dchannels
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
View Full Version : Anti-Piracy trailer coming to a screen near you
|
|
monotypic
03-04-2003, 05:43 PM
maybe they can get mcgruff to do the voice over or something.... puleeessseee... mpaa can kiss my ass... i tried to watch an import dvd yesterday.. "my neighbor totoro".. a LEGAL region 3 dvd... but.. because the mpaa decided that americans should only be able to watch AMERICAN dvd's... my dvd player will only play non american dvd's 3 times. then it locks up. and from that point on.. wether i format my computer or even move the damn dvd player to another computer. it will only play american dvd's. thank god for firmware hacks....
as for compareing it to the music industry... *sighs*.. that's just another rant all together....
as for compareing it to the music industry... *sighs*.. that's just another rant all together....
dark_lotus
03-04-2003, 09:09 PM
So let me get this right. They are going to target people who download films instead of going to theatres, by playing an anti-piracy campaign in theatres.
Does anyone else here spot something wrong with this?
Does anyone else here spot something wrong with this?
TheWraith
03-04-2003, 10:58 PM
haha! this is just too funny.
what better way to keep piracy from becomming widespread than by showing people who pay to see theaters "hey you retard, you could be watching this at home and save $8!"
i'm a big movie buff and see movies in theaters all the time. last movie i saw in a theater was old school which i thought was hilarious! but i've downloaded an occassional movie. but honestly, i never would have even THOUGHT about downloading a movie from the web if one of my friends didn't introduce me to it. and now the theaters are about to introduce it to all of their audience! just seems like a bad move to me.
from the article:
Among some students, the notion that a trailer could persuade anyone to stop downloading movies seems naïve, like the "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign. "It's become so acceptable to download movies and music off the Internet that people don't think it's wrong," said USC sophomore Jacqui Deelstra, 19. Added sophomore Art Priromprintr: "Nobody's going to think 'Oh, I'm hurting the movie industry right now' -- they don't care."
that is TOO TRUE! don't get me wrong, i've stopped downloading movies as of late because lately i've been able to actually buy the incredibly over priced $6 student movie ticket that was a mere $3.75 just 5 years ago! if the movie industry doesn't want people to download movies, they need to lower the god damned price of a ticket! the only way they'll over come the appeal of a free movie is to offer an affordable alternative that makes the quality the theater provides WORTH the price of admission. and for us students, $6 isn't all that appealing. that's $12 for me and my g/f plus $10 for snacks. which is why i now buy the tickets and sneak food in! hehe. just don't tell that to AMC
what better way to keep piracy from becomming widespread than by showing people who pay to see theaters "hey you retard, you could be watching this at home and save $8!"
i'm a big movie buff and see movies in theaters all the time. last movie i saw in a theater was old school which i thought was hilarious! but i've downloaded an occassional movie. but honestly, i never would have even THOUGHT about downloading a movie from the web if one of my friends didn't introduce me to it. and now the theaters are about to introduce it to all of their audience! just seems like a bad move to me.
from the article:
Among some students, the notion that a trailer could persuade anyone to stop downloading movies seems naïve, like the "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign. "It's become so acceptable to download movies and music off the Internet that people don't think it's wrong," said USC sophomore Jacqui Deelstra, 19. Added sophomore Art Priromprintr: "Nobody's going to think 'Oh, I'm hurting the movie industry right now' -- they don't care."
that is TOO TRUE! don't get me wrong, i've stopped downloading movies as of late because lately i've been able to actually buy the incredibly over priced $6 student movie ticket that was a mere $3.75 just 5 years ago! if the movie industry doesn't want people to download movies, they need to lower the god damned price of a ticket! the only way they'll over come the appeal of a free movie is to offer an affordable alternative that makes the quality the theater provides WORTH the price of admission. and for us students, $6 isn't all that appealing. that's $12 for me and my g/f plus $10 for snacks. which is why i now buy the tickets and sneak food in! hehe. just don't tell that to AMC
monotypic
03-04-2003, 11:15 PM
the only way they'll over come the appeal of a free movie is to offer an affordable alternative that makes the quality the theater provides WORTH the price of admission.
how true... but that's sorta the rout all major buisnesses are going isn't it? music industry... film... video games... we've all started just following the god damned formulas and stopped innovating.. we've grown greedy and stupid.
"oh.. we dont need to create anything original or diffrent... what's selling well right now? ... ok! we'll do that then!."
i dunno.. maybe i'm just rambling..... but is anyone else dissipointed with whats happening? i thought we knew better.
how true... but that's sorta the rout all major buisnesses are going isn't it? music industry... film... video games... we've all started just following the god damned formulas and stopped innovating.. we've grown greedy and stupid.
"oh.. we dont need to create anything original or diffrent... what's selling well right now? ... ok! we'll do that then!."
i dunno.. maybe i'm just rambling..... but is anyone else dissipointed with whats happening? i thought we knew better.
moovieboy
03-05-2003, 01:17 AM
...Not directed at anyone and I'm trying not to get too surly here :D
a) If $6-$10 is really too much to see a movie, then you have bigger problems than being able to see "Jackass II." No one HAS to see a movie. Chip 50 cents in with a bunch of friends and make it a Blockbuster night...
b) Kids would download pirated films even if movie tickets were $4 and DVDs were $5... and they'd still bitch and moan about five bucks being a rip-off!
c) I can't blame the MPAA in this instance (piracy)... Honestly, what'd folks expect after downloading hundreds of thousands of films? For the MPAA and the studios to applaud? Instead of creating an environment where we could have reasonable access to the world's films (including more region-free DVDs), cyber teen-agers stole everything but the buttered popcorn and now Jack Valenti's running around with a meat cleaver!
d) Don't like the quality of films and TV lately? Stop watching! The true enemy in this case is us, the audience! If folks keep throwing themselves (and millions of dollars) at "Just Married", "Jackass: the movie", "The Bachelorette" and "Joe Millionaire":surprised ...then what do you think will get funded for NEXT season?
There are plenty of good, quality shows/films out there, and it sure isn't their fault if people want voyueristic-schadenfreude nonsense instead:annoyed:
[/grumble groan]
-Tom :D
a) If $6-$10 is really too much to see a movie, then you have bigger problems than being able to see "Jackass II." No one HAS to see a movie. Chip 50 cents in with a bunch of friends and make it a Blockbuster night...
b) Kids would download pirated films even if movie tickets were $4 and DVDs were $5... and they'd still bitch and moan about five bucks being a rip-off!
c) I can't blame the MPAA in this instance (piracy)... Honestly, what'd folks expect after downloading hundreds of thousands of films? For the MPAA and the studios to applaud? Instead of creating an environment where we could have reasonable access to the world's films (including more region-free DVDs), cyber teen-agers stole everything but the buttered popcorn and now Jack Valenti's running around with a meat cleaver!
d) Don't like the quality of films and TV lately? Stop watching! The true enemy in this case is us, the audience! If folks keep throwing themselves (and millions of dollars) at "Just Married", "Jackass: the movie", "The Bachelorette" and "Joe Millionaire":surprised ...then what do you think will get funded for NEXT season?
There are plenty of good, quality shows/films out there, and it sure isn't their fault if people want voyueristic-schadenfreude nonsense instead:annoyed:
[/grumble groan]
-Tom :D
TheWraith
03-05-2003, 02:55 AM
i agree to a certain extent about the whole kids downloading movies even if the tickets were cheaper. some would. but others wouldn't. and when you're a college kid, who by the way are the majority of those downloading these movies and in the vcd "scene" then that $6 for a student admission is 3 weeks worth of ramen noodles. thats 3 weeks worth of meals! college kids are broke and they love their movies. when all the money you make goes towards rent, food and bills, it's easy to save a quick $6 just by dl'n a movie. at least if you lower the prices back to where they were just 5 years ago all of a sudden it becomes MUCH more affordable and likely that college kids WILL go to the theater. and the article also mentioned how movies didn't wanna become like how mp3's are now... yet the music industry began its downward spiral after napster became so popular, which was during the time they over charged for cd's and are now being sued for! you just can't expect people to buy your product if they feel it's not worth the money. jurassic park 3 was not worth $6. i'm sorry, but it sucked. how do i know if jurassic park 4 is gonna be worth $6? critics never like the movies i'm interested in so they're not much good to me. at least $3.75 was a price i was able to gamble away on a bad movie. i'm just venting cuz i can't believe the prices have nearly doubled in such a short amount of time. and again, remember back when you were in college all those years ago :p you learn to make a dollar go a long way when you're constantly broke.
Savage_Henry
03-05-2003, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by moovieboy
[Bd) Don't like the quality of films and TV lately? Stop watching! The true enemy in this case is us, the audience! If folks keep throwing themselves (and millions of dollars) at "Just Married", "Jackass: the movie", "The Bachelorette" and "Joe Millionaire":surprised ...then what do you think will get funded for NEXT season?
-Tom :D [/B]
Come on...Jackass was the funniest movie I saw last year. I nearly pissed myself.
[Bd) Don't like the quality of films and TV lately? Stop watching! The true enemy in this case is us, the audience! If folks keep throwing themselves (and millions of dollars) at "Just Married", "Jackass: the movie", "The Bachelorette" and "Joe Millionaire":surprised ...then what do you think will get funded for NEXT season?
-Tom :D [/B]
Come on...Jackass was the funniest movie I saw last year. I nearly pissed myself.
kdub
03-05-2003, 07:52 AM
1) i dunno how you guys can stand to watch downloaded movies. I demand both visual and auditory perfection, or very close to it.
2) ticket prices have gone way up, but this would be fine if snacks were cheaper! i'm talking, cut the prices by 4/5. I have always felt going to the movies was an experience, I'm not too fond of sitting at home and watching action movies, and I think it is for this reason, that by the time dowloading and watching movies at home becomes vastly popular it is going to be regulated in some way, and is going to cost something. I just don't see any threat to the movie industry.
3) Music. I just bought a new release CD for 10 bucks, how nice is that. Finally the fools are waking up. And that avril chick is shutting some napster haters up. She is the teen (biggest users of p2p) pop/rock girl. She sold 10 mil+ cd's in the last couple months. yeah, p2p is hurting music real bad. It is just reform that has finally come to the music industry. Maybe now they won't get 2 hit songs, and pile 15 other ones that suck onto a 20 dollar CD.
4) where it actually hurts...software. while small bands are helped by p2p, small software firms are killed by piracy. a movie ticket is 10 bucks, a cd is 15, software is $50+. Many of my friends haven't bought a game since Tribes. (my friends think I'm crazy but I buy all my games, and i love the little boxes)
More attention should be put on the effects on people of piracy. If music sales go down 4% Jlo and eminem make 48 mil a year instead of 50. Same goes for movies, whereas for software, a few sales gone could put a company out of business. Jlo, has got lots of rocks, and the programmer is poor and living on the block. But who bitches more? sad fact no?
I also think there should be more than just educational versions of large software titles: institutional and educational. Some art school should pay $500 bucks for a copy of edu-max, since they are going to make money teaching. However some student should pay 50, 60, 70 dollars to start learning. No one is going to cough up 500 dollars for a piece of software they have never used, and it isn't encouraging young people to get into this industry when they are the ones who are going to be the future of it.
Kind of went on a tangent, but hey, i live in america, and we do whatever we want, even if it's stupid, reckless, clearly imperailistic, nationalistic, arrogant, cruel, evil, sadistic, terror causing, or redundant.....feel the sarcasm!...feel it!...:thumbsup:
2) ticket prices have gone way up, but this would be fine if snacks were cheaper! i'm talking, cut the prices by 4/5. I have always felt going to the movies was an experience, I'm not too fond of sitting at home and watching action movies, and I think it is for this reason, that by the time dowloading and watching movies at home becomes vastly popular it is going to be regulated in some way, and is going to cost something. I just don't see any threat to the movie industry.
3) Music. I just bought a new release CD for 10 bucks, how nice is that. Finally the fools are waking up. And that avril chick is shutting some napster haters up. She is the teen (biggest users of p2p) pop/rock girl. She sold 10 mil+ cd's in the last couple months. yeah, p2p is hurting music real bad. It is just reform that has finally come to the music industry. Maybe now they won't get 2 hit songs, and pile 15 other ones that suck onto a 20 dollar CD.
4) where it actually hurts...software. while small bands are helped by p2p, small software firms are killed by piracy. a movie ticket is 10 bucks, a cd is 15, software is $50+. Many of my friends haven't bought a game since Tribes. (my friends think I'm crazy but I buy all my games, and i love the little boxes)
More attention should be put on the effects on people of piracy. If music sales go down 4% Jlo and eminem make 48 mil a year instead of 50. Same goes for movies, whereas for software, a few sales gone could put a company out of business. Jlo, has got lots of rocks, and the programmer is poor and living on the block. But who bitches more? sad fact no?
I also think there should be more than just educational versions of large software titles: institutional and educational. Some art school should pay $500 bucks for a copy of edu-max, since they are going to make money teaching. However some student should pay 50, 60, 70 dollars to start learning. No one is going to cough up 500 dollars for a piece of software they have never used, and it isn't encouraging young people to get into this industry when they are the ones who are going to be the future of it.
Kind of went on a tangent, but hey, i live in america, and we do whatever we want, even if it's stupid, reckless, clearly imperailistic, nationalistic, arrogant, cruel, evil, sadistic, terror causing, or redundant.....feel the sarcasm!...feel it!...:thumbsup:
azazel
03-05-2003, 08:51 AM
I can stand trailers before movie, I can to same extend stand ads (if aren't too crappy), but that's a bit too much. Remember a thread while ago about sueing the theathers for ads BTW? Maybe I should sue them for wasting my time ;)
I love watching movies in theathers, but 20 mins of crappy ads and anti-piracy rubbish can spoil much of the fun :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow
I love watching movies in theathers, but 20 mins of crappy ads and anti-piracy rubbish can spoil much of the fun :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow
Tex3D
03-05-2003, 03:01 PM
I dont download movies and haven't ever WANTED to. How you can sit there in front of your computer actually ENJOYING a film is beyond me.
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
-Dave
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
-Dave
Tex3D
03-05-2003, 03:02 PM
And another thing..........
......* If $6-$10 is really too much to see a movie, then you have bigger problems than being able to see "Jackass II." No one HAS to see a movie. *
I don't agree with you on this one. If a person works there ass off at school all week and needs to blow off steam with his girl, then he SHOULD be able to get out and go to a real theater and have a nice evening out. I personally feel that it IS a right to get out once in awhile, and no blockbuster DVD rental can ever match sitting in the theater sharing popcorn and a large soda with your sweetie.
:thumbsup:
-Dave
......* If $6-$10 is really too much to see a movie, then you have bigger problems than being able to see "Jackass II." No one HAS to see a movie. *
I don't agree with you on this one. If a person works there ass off at school all week and needs to blow off steam with his girl, then he SHOULD be able to get out and go to a real theater and have a nice evening out. I personally feel that it IS a right to get out once in awhile, and no blockbuster DVD rental can ever match sitting in the theater sharing popcorn and a large soda with your sweetie.
:thumbsup:
-Dave
kwshipman
03-05-2003, 04:14 PM
I have downloaded a couple of movies in my day, but for the most part it is not too enjoyable, screen is two small, chair is not designed for relaxing, and the movie is usually compressed. But I would rather go throught that than give my money to the blood sucking people that run our movie theaters here in town. There are 3 thearters here, all owned and opperated by the same person so they charge what ever they want and make up what ever rules they want. For a while they started searching purses, and bags, but that didn't last long. They asked my mom to leave when the searched her purse and found some licourishe, after she had already paid for the ticket! I did however have to take my wife to see Chicago though. Oh the things you do for love. But anyway, I will just stick to renting, or buying. Havent even seen Lord Of the Rings II yet as I dont want to go to the theater.
Signal2Noise
03-05-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by kwshipman
I did however have to take my wife to see Chicago though.
Sorry to hear about that. I feel for you.
Oh the things you do for love. But anyway, I will just stick to renting, or buying. Havent even seen Lord Of the Rings II yet as I dont want to go to the theater.
You are definitely missing out, then.Epic movies like this are meant to be seen on the big screen. Peter Jackson & Co. deserve your money for the job they did. And don't forget the Matrix series soon to be out. Movies that have great visuals (cinematography & F/X) and sound are worth the money.
I did however have to take my wife to see Chicago though.
Sorry to hear about that. I feel for you.
Oh the things you do for love. But anyway, I will just stick to renting, or buying. Havent even seen Lord Of the Rings II yet as I dont want to go to the theater.
You are definitely missing out, then.Epic movies like this are meant to be seen on the big screen. Peter Jackson & Co. deserve your money for the job they did. And don't forget the Matrix series soon to be out. Movies that have great visuals (cinematography & F/X) and sound are worth the money.
moovieboy
03-05-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Tex3d
I don't agree with you on this one. If a person works there ass off at school all week and needs to blow off steam with his girl, then he SHOULD be able to get out and go to a real theater and have a nice evening out. I personally feel that it IS a right to get out once in awhile, and no blockbuster DVD rental can ever match sitting in the theater sharing popcorn and a large soda with your sweetie.
We've all been/are/will be there... You want to treat your "significant other," but the rent's due... and you can't afford that either! :D
Sure, we all deserve to take each other out to a nice dinner and a show, but that's life as a starving student/artist. These are the times when you say, "Some day we'll look back on this and laugh."
Also, comparing the cost of a movie tickets to a concert tickets/sports events/theatre tickets/restaurant bills/club cover-charges and $$$ drinks/etc, etc... I still think we can't spout off too much regarding paying $14-$30 for a movie date... and that's if you're NOT going dutch :D
My wife (then girlfriend) understood... and hey, you can do more than just cuddle when you make it a blockbuster night too :p
-Tom
P.S. kdub, the snacks will never go cheaper... The theatre chains are already going broke/bankrupt and the food's one of the few things that keeps them treading water...
I don't agree with you on this one. If a person works there ass off at school all week and needs to blow off steam with his girl, then he SHOULD be able to get out and go to a real theater and have a nice evening out. I personally feel that it IS a right to get out once in awhile, and no blockbuster DVD rental can ever match sitting in the theater sharing popcorn and a large soda with your sweetie.
We've all been/are/will be there... You want to treat your "significant other," but the rent's due... and you can't afford that either! :D
Sure, we all deserve to take each other out to a nice dinner and a show, but that's life as a starving student/artist. These are the times when you say, "Some day we'll look back on this and laugh."
Also, comparing the cost of a movie tickets to a concert tickets/sports events/theatre tickets/restaurant bills/club cover-charges and $$$ drinks/etc, etc... I still think we can't spout off too much regarding paying $14-$30 for a movie date... and that's if you're NOT going dutch :D
My wife (then girlfriend) understood... and hey, you can do more than just cuddle when you make it a blockbuster night too :p
-Tom
P.S. kdub, the snacks will never go cheaper... The theatre chains are already going broke/bankrupt and the food's one of the few things that keeps them treading water...
WU2
03-05-2003, 10:37 PM
hahaha savage henry... someone of a similar mindset :)
AJ
03-05-2003, 11:27 PM
...includes the recording of movies in theaters with sophisticated camcorders
How sophisticated are these sophisticated camcorders...?
:surprised
Are they more or less sophisticated than a sophisticated cocktail party?
THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW!:scream:
How sophisticated are these sophisticated camcorders...?
:surprised
Are they more or less sophisticated than a sophisticated cocktail party?
THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW!:scream:
kwshipman
03-06-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Signal to Noise
Sorry to hear about that. I feel for you.
It wasn't as bad as I thought, I almost liked it. just dont tell her, then I would have to watch Moulin Rouge, and greece, and newsies.:thumbsdow
Originally posted by Signal to Noise
You are definitely missing out, then.Epic movies like this are meant to be seen on the big screen. Peter Jackson & Co. deserve your money for the job they did. And don't forget the Matrix series soon to be out. Movies that have great visuals (cinematography & F/X) and sound are worth the money.
All of my friends went without me, the rat bastards. Now no one will go with me, though about telling my wife "I took you to Chicago you should take me to LOTR" but that probably wont go over well. Oh well didn't get to see the first one in the theater either.:shrug:
Sorry to hear about that. I feel for you.
It wasn't as bad as I thought, I almost liked it. just dont tell her, then I would have to watch Moulin Rouge, and greece, and newsies.:thumbsdow
Originally posted by Signal to Noise
You are definitely missing out, then.Epic movies like this are meant to be seen on the big screen. Peter Jackson & Co. deserve your money for the job they did. And don't forget the Matrix series soon to be out. Movies that have great visuals (cinematography & F/X) and sound are worth the money.
All of my friends went without me, the rat bastards. Now no one will go with me, though about telling my wife "I took you to Chicago you should take me to LOTR" but that probably wont go over well. Oh well didn't get to see the first one in the theater either.:shrug:
noisewar
03-07-2003, 10:27 AM
I can stand watching downloaded movies... given the quality of most major releases today, I'd like to know what's worth my 8 bucks before I spend it, or my 20 bucks if I choose to buy it. I also demand audio and visual perfection... but I'll gladly figure what's worth the price first.
ambient-whisper
03-07-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Tex3D
I dont download movies and haven't ever WANTED to. How you can sit there in front of your computer actually ENJOYING a film is beyond me.
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
-Dave
have you thought about the people who just dont enjoy going to the movies because every time you go theres some bloody annoying people behind you either laughing. eating real loud... people not knowing how to turn off their damn cell phone...and freakin ANSWER IT. people translating films for others. stupid ass teens making a lot of noise. or in the case of LOTR, some people reciting(sp) the damn words...or saying things like. man this is sucking..lets go. and then people start leaving infront of you. i wanna watch the movie dammit.
so ya.. the theatres arent always the only way to enjoy movies.
sometimes the privacy of your own home can be a good thing.
I dont download movies and haven't ever WANTED to. How you can sit there in front of your computer actually ENJOYING a film is beyond me.
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
-Dave
have you thought about the people who just dont enjoy going to the movies because every time you go theres some bloody annoying people behind you either laughing. eating real loud... people not knowing how to turn off their damn cell phone...and freakin ANSWER IT. people translating films for others. stupid ass teens making a lot of noise. or in the case of LOTR, some people reciting(sp) the damn words...or saying things like. man this is sucking..lets go. and then people start leaving infront of you. i wanna watch the movie dammit.
so ya.. the theatres arent always the only way to enjoy movies.
sometimes the privacy of your own home can be a good thing.
Savage_Henry
03-07-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by WU`
hahaha savage henry... someone of a similar mindset :)
Right on WU...The intro alone was worth the price of admission. That movie was great....reminds me of me and my friends...we even had our own milk drinking contest a few summers ago. Do you know how hard it is to drink 4 litre jug of milk? The lawn was a swamp of undigested milk. anyway...great movie.
hahaha savage henry... someone of a similar mindset :)
Right on WU...The intro alone was worth the price of admission. That movie was great....reminds me of me and my friends...we even had our own milk drinking contest a few summers ago. Do you know how hard it is to drink 4 litre jug of milk? The lawn was a swamp of undigested milk. anyway...great movie.
Chewey
03-07-2003, 01:14 PM
Never experienced any of those annoying problems you've listed. Try taking in the film on a weekend afternoon a few weeks after the initial release. The crowds are thinner and the prices less as well.
Or you can wait for the legit release on dvd.
:cool:
Or you can wait for the legit release on dvd.
:cool:
Tex3D
03-07-2003, 01:39 PM
*...have you thought about the people who just dont enjoy going to the movies because every time you go theres some bloody annoying people behind you either laughing. eating real loud...
.. the theatres arent always the only way to enjoy movies.
sometimes the privacy of your own home can be a good thing.*
Well sure there are always going to be annoying people at the theater and in the mall and at the bus stop and in the supermarket. They're everywhere !! If you don't want to go the movies because of these things then that's fine, but my point is that people that download movies are NOT getting anywhere near the experience they should.
If someone is turned off by all the rabble in the theater, then buy the DVD or rent the DVD. Personally I have a LOT of DVD's, and I agree that sometimes watching at home where it's quiet and the floors don't stick is MUCH better, but as far as I'm concerned, downloaders screwed themselves, so who cares if they enjoy it or not.
-Dave
.. the theatres arent always the only way to enjoy movies.
sometimes the privacy of your own home can be a good thing.*
Well sure there are always going to be annoying people at the theater and in the mall and at the bus stop and in the supermarket. They're everywhere !! If you don't want to go the movies because of these things then that's fine, but my point is that people that download movies are NOT getting anywhere near the experience they should.
If someone is turned off by all the rabble in the theater, then buy the DVD or rent the DVD. Personally I have a LOT of DVD's, and I agree that sometimes watching at home where it's quiet and the floors don't stick is MUCH better, but as far as I'm concerned, downloaders screwed themselves, so who cares if they enjoy it or not.
-Dave
VizStorm
03-07-2003, 03:55 PM
"These are just hard-working people on the movie set," said Valenti. "They are not fat with compensation," and their livelihoods are at stake.
So take a tiny percentage of the 20+ MILLION dollars you pay "stars" and give the "hard-working people on the movie set" what they deserve.
Don't blame us you bastard!
So take a tiny percentage of the 20+ MILLION dollars you pay "stars" and give the "hard-working people on the movie set" what they deserve.
Don't blame us you bastard!
TerrestrialSea
03-07-2003, 05:41 PM
Do they honestly think that a trailer will be able to fight the growing population of people downloading movies off the Internet? Seriously! How many short film and trailers do your remember after you've gone to see a movie? I think that the music industry made a bad mistake by fighting napster and I think the movie industry will loose money by fighting kazaa. Instead of fighting illegal copying, try capitalizing on it. Make it easier for people to get hold of movies by putting them on ISP servers or make them available on Kazaa and other file sharing programs with a payment program embedded in the movie it's self, you pay a dollar for every view, and after you have viewed it 16 times it unlocks completely. There are many ways the movie industry could make money instead of spending it. I for one am in support of anti-piracy, but I think like any other money driven American that wants to make money, and I see kazaa and other means of file sharing as a way to make money.
Whether there is a music industry, movie industry, or any other industry, there will always be people ripping off of content provided; it's a fact of life. There is also another fact of life; you can use that to your advantage. If the evil board members in charge of these multi-billion dollar corporations weren’t so busy listening to their bitchy lawyers that they forget to listen to the average everyday Joe Bob movie goers (i.e. You and Me!) they would probably make a lot more money and suffer a lot less piracy.
Whether there is a music industry, movie industry, or any other industry, there will always be people ripping off of content provided; it's a fact of life. There is also another fact of life; you can use that to your advantage. If the evil board members in charge of these multi-billion dollar corporations weren’t so busy listening to their bitchy lawyers that they forget to listen to the average everyday Joe Bob movie goers (i.e. You and Me!) they would probably make a lot more money and suffer a lot less piracy.
cityhunter
03-07-2003, 10:09 PM
word to WizStorm.
I agree with ya. I mean you pay the "stars" that much money and that they bitch at us for the rest of the workcrew are not paid enough. Forget that warning trailer crap. Next thing you know we have the "stars" do spots on those and they get paid mad money for telling us that we are the cause for the people that worked on the set not paid enough.:thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow
I agree with ya. I mean you pay the "stars" that much money and that they bitch at us for the rest of the workcrew are not paid enough. Forget that warning trailer crap. Next thing you know we have the "stars" do spots on those and they get paid mad money for telling us that we are the cause for the people that worked on the set not paid enough.:thumbsdow :thumbsdow :thumbsdow
moovieboy
03-07-2003, 10:59 PM
Blaming a star's salary has nothing to do with anti-piracy and has nothing to do with what the crew gets paid, period.
Keep the blame where it belongs: a generation of kids/young adults who now believe stealing is okay... and an industry that's too paniced at "lost revenue" figures to do more than think of their interests first...
How does one come to a "reasonable" solution when the theives can say, "why pay $1 per view when I can get it for free?"
-Tom
Keep the blame where it belongs: a generation of kids/young adults who now believe stealing is okay... and an industry that's too paniced at "lost revenue" figures to do more than think of their interests first...
How does one come to a "reasonable" solution when the theives can say, "why pay $1 per view when I can get it for free?"
-Tom
macqdor
03-09-2003, 03:50 AM
I say BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and Ha Ha H a serves them right.
Long live DVD XCopy and now Pinnacle Pro( the copying of DVD movies )
Long live DVD XCopy and now Pinnacle Pro( the copying of DVD movies )
Jhonus
03-09-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Tex3D
I dont download movies and haven't ever WANTED to. How you can sit there in front of your computer actually ENJOYING a film is beyond me.
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
Okay... heres my version of the "experience" in bullet point form.
Sore ass.
Cramped seating.
Sharing an arm rest with some sweaty hoe.
No room to stretch legs.
Overly loud sound.
Cellphones.
Chatter.
Smelly people.
Heat.
Chewing, slurping.
Rustling wrappers.
And last but not least... get this... spending 20minutes queing to get into the theatre just to make sure you get a good seat... i.e so that you dont end up with a neck strain from sitting at the front... i mean who actually wants/enjoys sitting at the front? why do they bother putting seats there?
I'm sorry but the only thing I like about the movies is the big screen.
I would rather have the option to watch a movie at home anyday.
/edit ooops, ambient whispers covered thsi already, i didnt read 2nd page
I dont download movies and haven't ever WANTED to. How you can sit there in front of your computer actually ENJOYING a film is beyond me.
When I go to a flick I want (corny as hell ALERT) the "experience" of watching a big screen, popcorn on the floor, speakers too loud extravaganza.
You can love or hate a movie, but you will only truly get the experience in a darkened theater. All the people that download movies are screwing themselves so F* them anyways.
Okay... heres my version of the "experience" in bullet point form.
Sore ass.
Cramped seating.
Sharing an arm rest with some sweaty hoe.
No room to stretch legs.
Overly loud sound.
Cellphones.
Chatter.
Smelly people.
Heat.
Chewing, slurping.
Rustling wrappers.
And last but not least... get this... spending 20minutes queing to get into the theatre just to make sure you get a good seat... i.e so that you dont end up with a neck strain from sitting at the front... i mean who actually wants/enjoys sitting at the front? why do they bother putting seats there?
I'm sorry but the only thing I like about the movies is the big screen.
I would rather have the option to watch a movie at home anyday.
/edit ooops, ambient whispers covered thsi already, i didnt read 2nd page
Tex3D
03-09-2003, 10:23 PM
Man, I guess I have it pretty good then, because I've never had such a tremendously horrible experience at the theater as some of you guys have. I mean sure, I have to deal with lines and dumbasses, but other than that I guess the other stuff doesn't bother me so much.:shrug:
Oh well, I guess I'm wrong then. Maybe going to the movies IS an extremely grating and horrifying experience. I'll start downloading right away:D
-Dave
Oh well, I guess I'm wrong then. Maybe going to the movies IS an extremely grating and horrifying experience. I'll start downloading right away:D
-Dave
Tex3D
03-09-2003, 10:26 PM
.......or I could wait till' it comes out on DVD and RENT IT or even better, I could BUY it.......
Naww, then I'd be supporting the corporate whores!. ....back to downloading!:hmm:
-Dave
Naww, then I'd be supporting the corporate whores!. ....back to downloading!:hmm:
-Dave
Jhonus
03-09-2003, 10:35 PM
I'm just saying that going to the movies isn't the glorious experience its cracked up to be.. for me anyway..... its more akin to a lesson in experiencing human behaviour.
as far as piracy goes... i dont think its worth getting into that. :D You can argue against the excuses for downloading just as you can argue the moral reasoning for not downloading. The fact of the matter is that people will download the movies for free unless you provide with them something better or make it not worth their while to download the movies.
Neither has happened so far.
as far as piracy goes... i dont think its worth getting into that. :D You can argue against the excuses for downloading just as you can argue the moral reasoning for not downloading. The fact of the matter is that people will download the movies for free unless you provide with them something better or make it not worth their while to download the movies.
Neither has happened so far.
JohnD
03-10-2003, 02:29 PM
I'll go to a movie in a theatre way before I ever watch one on my computer. Just doesn't have the same impact on a 21" monitor.
Flog
03-10-2003, 07:34 PM
said the trailer will make the case that downloads and other piracy are really theft that takes an economic toll on individuals working in the movie industry such as makeup artists and set builders -- not just multimillion-dollar movie stars or directors.
Whatever, I thought these people get paid before the movie goes to the theatre.
I think what is hurting the movie industry it high ticket prices and crappy movies.
Why would people chance 10 bucks to go to a movie that really sucks. You have to be so selective nowadays.
Most people who go to the movies do so for recreation, and the love of going to the movies, the experience. Something you won't get at home. And I think those people continue to go to the movies. All the people I know who download movies end up going to the movie, even after downloading it. And I don't think the movie industry is hurt. They are just greedy and want every little cent.
I mean Harry Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, Daredevil, Scorpion King, Austin Powers, made well over 200 million dollars out of the 100-140 million to make. Thats a good return. Sorry but their argument is not convincing. Oooh a commercial, wow, thanks for giving us another reason not to go to the movies.
Commercials, that would be something that hurts them. I know plenty of people who do not go to a movie due to being tired of the commercials.
The music industry is in a slump for many things, including Clearwchannel or Clearwater communication who own 40% of the Top 40 radio stations. They play the same crap over and over. THere are times I hear a song and want to buy the cd but then I hear the song over and over and over, sometimes twice every hour and then you just get tired of it and don't want to buy it. Pluse music has lost alot of soul. They should blame the manufactoring of music rather than just downloading it. They have done studies on that already and it has proven that the people downloading the music bought 80% more cd's than the average person.
Whatever, I thought these people get paid before the movie goes to the theatre.
I think what is hurting the movie industry it high ticket prices and crappy movies.
Why would people chance 10 bucks to go to a movie that really sucks. You have to be so selective nowadays.
Most people who go to the movies do so for recreation, and the love of going to the movies, the experience. Something you won't get at home. And I think those people continue to go to the movies. All the people I know who download movies end up going to the movie, even after downloading it. And I don't think the movie industry is hurt. They are just greedy and want every little cent.
I mean Harry Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, Daredevil, Scorpion King, Austin Powers, made well over 200 million dollars out of the 100-140 million to make. Thats a good return. Sorry but their argument is not convincing. Oooh a commercial, wow, thanks for giving us another reason not to go to the movies.
Commercials, that would be something that hurts them. I know plenty of people who do not go to a movie due to being tired of the commercials.
The music industry is in a slump for many things, including Clearwchannel or Clearwater communication who own 40% of the Top 40 radio stations. They play the same crap over and over. THere are times I hear a song and want to buy the cd but then I hear the song over and over and over, sometimes twice every hour and then you just get tired of it and don't want to buy it. Pluse music has lost alot of soul. They should blame the manufactoring of music rather than just downloading it. They have done studies on that already and it has proven that the people downloading the music bought 80% more cd's than the average person.
Unwanted_Pain
03-10-2003, 07:45 PM
I have heard, that it can be very time consuming to find
a good quality, downloadable movie.
Although, if you get one, you can watch it over and over.
a good quality, downloadable movie.
Although, if you get one, you can watch it over and over.
TheWraith
03-10-2003, 07:46 PM
i would agree with that last statement about the music industry. i for one am tired of hearing nelly's "it's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes...." over and over and over and over again on the damned radio. that song was great like 6 months ago when it first came out. now it's old, and STILL being played every hour on the radio! say i switch to a rock station. well, i'm tired of hearing linkin park. i mean come on! whats wrong with playing songs that are 10 years old in the mix of songs that are a year old? i'm just tired of hearing the same 15 songs on rotation. i dunno, i guess i'm just venting. but it is true for me on the whole buying cd's. why buy eminem's new cd when you can just wait a month and you will be tired of him because of the radio.
Flog
03-10-2003, 07:47 PM
I say they should flood it.
The movie industry should flood Kazaa and other file sharing programs with "FREE MOVIES"
For example they should put out a million Star Wars copies under assumed names. Flood Kazaa with millions of copies and sharing and such. People will download it watch and and once it has finished being viewed it charges you.
Then if you don't pay you get calls from collectors or a recording like BLockbuster video does when you owe them money on a movie, and if you don't pay turn them in to the credit bureau. But the key is to Flood kazaa with this, that way people don't know which is which and then have to pay after they watch it. Charge by IP and registration. Work with Time Warner Cable and the DSL folks to track that and charge folks. But trick them basically. And you can't fight it cause you stole and downloaded it. But Flood Kazaa and nobody knows which one to download. It will bring it down. LOL
So basically you download your movie from the millions of choices, then you get a copy view it and after it is viewed a message pops up saying you will be charged. YOUR ISP has been contacted and this movie will be charged to your next bill. Thanks for watching and enjoying the movie. Peace out.
The movie industry should flood Kazaa and other file sharing programs with "FREE MOVIES"
For example they should put out a million Star Wars copies under assumed names. Flood Kazaa with millions of copies and sharing and such. People will download it watch and and once it has finished being viewed it charges you.
Then if you don't pay you get calls from collectors or a recording like BLockbuster video does when you owe them money on a movie, and if you don't pay turn them in to the credit bureau. But the key is to Flood kazaa with this, that way people don't know which is which and then have to pay after they watch it. Charge by IP and registration. Work with Time Warner Cable and the DSL folks to track that and charge folks. But trick them basically. And you can't fight it cause you stole and downloaded it. But Flood Kazaa and nobody knows which one to download. It will bring it down. LOL
So basically you download your movie from the millions of choices, then you get a copy view it and after it is viewed a message pops up saying you will be charged. YOUR ISP has been contacted and this movie will be charged to your next bill. Thanks for watching and enjoying the movie. Peace out.
macqdor
03-10-2003, 08:08 PM
Why downlaod movies offline when you can purchase DVD-X-Copy and burn them with the same quality.
Pinacle just launched its own DVD burning program for $49.00 that copies DVD to DVD-R or DVD+R/RW
then watch it on your TV?
i've did it and it rocks.
Pinacle just launched its own DVD burning program for $49.00 that copies DVD to DVD-R or DVD+R/RW
then watch it on your TV?
i've did it and it rocks.
Unwanted_Pain
03-10-2003, 08:54 PM
flooding it may work...
but then if there is ever a crack for the movie
allowing you to not be charged
the internet would be full of hq movies
for free
but then if there is ever a crack for the movie
allowing you to not be charged
the internet would be full of hq movies
for free
Flog
03-10-2003, 09:00 PM
but thats the thing many will be trapped. Of course people will have the cracked version but then they would have to find it among the pay ones. It will be a gamble which one is cracked and which one is the pay version. You'd have to sort through if it was flooded like that. Watch at your own risk.
If you take the blue file you go back to neverland if you choose the red you pay.
Thats the reason for the Flood, sure there will be cracked, but thing is to find the crack.
If you take the blue file you go back to neverland if you choose the red you pay.
Thats the reason for the Flood, sure there will be cracked, but thing is to find the crack.
Unwanted_Pain
03-10-2003, 09:10 PM
but there would be a program that would crack the paying version
just a little program you run your files through before playing them
just a little program you run your files through before playing them
azazel
03-10-2003, 10:25 PM
So You mean I'll have to pay every time I watch this 'flood' movie, every time I even want to check a single scene? :thumbsdow Besides that'd quickly jam the net with lot of useless crappy movies - probably first flooded would be craps like 'batman and robin'.
There will be no option: in theathers there would be tons of ads, including anti piracy ones, or You could download the movies which may want You to pay for them, and they would probably be also containing ads. Only thing left would be DVDs, but there are region issues and other crap. Why can't we just go to the cinema, or rent a DVD, and don't be bothered about security/ads/anti-piracy/region/political/copyright stuff?
There will be no option: in theathers there would be tons of ads, including anti piracy ones, or You could download the movies which may want You to pay for them, and they would probably be also containing ads. Only thing left would be DVDs, but there are region issues and other crap. Why can't we just go to the cinema, or rent a DVD, and don't be bothered about security/ads/anti-piracy/region/political/copyright stuff?
moovieboy
03-10-2003, 10:30 PM
Why downlaod movies offline when you can purchase DVD-X-Copy and burn them with the same quality.
Pinacle just launched its own DVD burning program for $49.00 that copies DVD to DVD-R or DVD+R/RW
then watch it on your TV?
Why spend hundreds of dollars on DVD burners and $49 on software and then more money for the DVD-Rs when, for the same money, you could get anywhere from 30 - 50 of your favorite movies ON THE ACTUAL DVD (with better sound, video and a better, longer-lasting quality recording too)...?:surprised
Plus, since you have a receipt, you can return/exchange it (within reason) if it's scratched up or turn around and SELL it on e-bay if ya get bored with it and make some of your money back to buy MORE DVDs.....
Naw, that must be crazy talk.
-Tom
Pinacle just launched its own DVD burning program for $49.00 that copies DVD to DVD-R or DVD+R/RW
then watch it on your TV?
Why spend hundreds of dollars on DVD burners and $49 on software and then more money for the DVD-Rs when, for the same money, you could get anywhere from 30 - 50 of your favorite movies ON THE ACTUAL DVD (with better sound, video and a better, longer-lasting quality recording too)...?:surprised
Plus, since you have a receipt, you can return/exchange it (within reason) if it's scratched up or turn around and SELL it on e-bay if ya get bored with it and make some of your money back to buy MORE DVDs.....
Naw, that must be crazy talk.
-Tom
Unwanted_Pain
03-10-2003, 10:36 PM
I dont do this,
but you could always just rent movies,
rip em to your hardrive and burn em to a dvd,
but you would need a large HD + dvd burner
then you get a direct HQ copy for 5 bucks + dvd media
-----------------------------------
but you could always just rent movies,
rip em to your hardrive and burn em to a dvd,
but you would need a large HD + dvd burner
then you get a direct HQ copy for 5 bucks + dvd media
-----------------------------------
Tex3D
03-10-2003, 10:37 PM
Moovieboy,
Because some people have no sense....
That's why
-Dave
Because some people have no sense....
That's why
-Dave
Flog
03-10-2003, 10:52 PM
So You mean I'll have to pay every time I watch this 'flood' movie, every time I even want to check a single scene? Besides that'd quickly jam the net with lot of useless crappy movies - probably first flooded would be craps like 'batman and robin'.
That means you don't watch it if you don't want to pay, and the more of a flood the more inconvenient it is to download, the easier going to buy a movie, rent or go to the movies gets. Thats the point to Flood it with those tricky "charge per view by ISP" and make it inconvenient. The more inconvenient the less people will do it. Then they chance getting a charge by ISP and then get a bill the next time for the internet and walla. Dang I'm gonna stop doing that mess all the time. Its tricky and sneaky and folks will get a little dettered, not completely but your average joe would.
That means you don't watch it if you don't want to pay, and the more of a flood the more inconvenient it is to download, the easier going to buy a movie, rent or go to the movies gets. Thats the point to Flood it with those tricky "charge per view by ISP" and make it inconvenient. The more inconvenient the less people will do it. Then they chance getting a charge by ISP and then get a bill the next time for the internet and walla. Dang I'm gonna stop doing that mess all the time. Its tricky and sneaky and folks will get a little dettered, not completely but your average joe would.
googlo
03-10-2003, 10:53 PM
Plus, since you have a receipt, you can return/exchange it (within reason) if it's scratched up or turn around and SELL it on e-bay if ya get bored with it and make some of your money back to buy MORE DVDs.....
Naw, that must be crazy talk.
-Tom
This doesn't really have anything to do with the arguement of pirating movies, but I wanted to comment about how this statement isn't always the case due to new protection schemes.
My brother bought a dvd movie to play on his playstation2 from a local wal-mart store.
It wouldn't work. We spent like 30 minutes checking the dvd for errors, cleaning the P2, examined the package for any info.
Nothing.
Turns out (the salesman at wal-mart told us when we tried to take it back) that the people who produced this movie/dvd/whatever designed the dvd to only play on a particular brand of DVD players, the playstation2 was not one of them.
There was no notice on the packaging about this, there were no signs around the dvd section stating this.
They wouldn't let us return or even exchange it.
So my brother has a dvd he can't use.
Protection schemeing at it's best..
I was totally pissed off and thought it was completely wrong that company can be allowed to dictate to consumers what make of dvd players one can and can't play their dvd's on.
Doesn't that seem just wrong? Being able to play dvd's is one of the reasons why my brother bought the PS2 over a year ago, other movie dvd's work fine it. :shrug:
Naw, that must be crazy talk.
-Tom
This doesn't really have anything to do with the arguement of pirating movies, but I wanted to comment about how this statement isn't always the case due to new protection schemes.
My brother bought a dvd movie to play on his playstation2 from a local wal-mart store.
It wouldn't work. We spent like 30 minutes checking the dvd for errors, cleaning the P2, examined the package for any info.
Nothing.
Turns out (the salesman at wal-mart told us when we tried to take it back) that the people who produced this movie/dvd/whatever designed the dvd to only play on a particular brand of DVD players, the playstation2 was not one of them.
There was no notice on the packaging about this, there were no signs around the dvd section stating this.
They wouldn't let us return or even exchange it.
So my brother has a dvd he can't use.
Protection schemeing at it's best..
I was totally pissed off and thought it was completely wrong that company can be allowed to dictate to consumers what make of dvd players one can and can't play their dvd's on.
Doesn't that seem just wrong? Being able to play dvd's is one of the reasons why my brother bought the PS2 over a year ago, other movie dvd's work fine it. :shrug:
moovieboy
03-10-2003, 11:23 PM
Sounds more like a reason to avoid Wal-Marts... but yes, as technologies have been getting ironed out since 1998, there have been many DVD hiccups.
Lots of DVDs were having problems on the PS2... Also, The Matrix (because of its then cutting edge "white rabbit" trick) and T2 Ultimate Edition (because it was one of the few to have double-sided, dual-layed DVDs) tripped up many brands of DVD players...
Something that some of the DVD-R technologies aren't very upfront about is that, say you rip yourself LOTR after renting it from Blockbuster... You still don't have the best odds of playing it on your and all of your friend's DVD players, depending on age and make... that's the main hurdle with DVD-R and DVD-RW right now... and one of the reasons employers don't want your demo reel on DVD:shrug:
-Tom
Lots of DVDs were having problems on the PS2... Also, The Matrix (because of its then cutting edge "white rabbit" trick) and T2 Ultimate Edition (because it was one of the few to have double-sided, dual-layed DVDs) tripped up many brands of DVD players...
Something that some of the DVD-R technologies aren't very upfront about is that, say you rip yourself LOTR after renting it from Blockbuster... You still don't have the best odds of playing it on your and all of your friend's DVD players, depending on age and make... that's the main hurdle with DVD-R and DVD-RW right now... and one of the reasons employers don't want your demo reel on DVD:shrug:
-Tom
windarr
03-11-2003, 05:56 AM
<rant>
Moovieboy, I love what you preach. I hate how everyone whines how movies (games, CD's, and DVD's) are so expensive. If it's too freaking expensive, then don't buy it. And just because someone can't afford it doesn't give them any right to rip it off the web. I bet anyone here would relate if someone ripped off your artwork without proper compensation, just because that person couldn't afford to pay.
I didn't have time to read the rest of everyone's comments, but I just wanted to say that I totally agree with Moovieboy. This society is much too geared at the instant fix. If you see a Preview on TV and want to watch it, but can't afford it....then just wait. It won't freaking kill you.
</rant>
Moovieboy, I love what you preach. I hate how everyone whines how movies (games, CD's, and DVD's) are so expensive. If it's too freaking expensive, then don't buy it. And just because someone can't afford it doesn't give them any right to rip it off the web. I bet anyone here would relate if someone ripped off your artwork without proper compensation, just because that person couldn't afford to pay.
I didn't have time to read the rest of everyone's comments, but I just wanted to say that I totally agree with Moovieboy. This society is much too geared at the instant fix. If you see a Preview on TV and want to watch it, but can't afford it....then just wait. It won't freaking kill you.
</rant>
Flog
03-11-2003, 02:22 PM
ITs just earlier we were talking about going to the movies as opposed to downloading it.
MPAA is saying that it hurts the movie industry. I say it doesn't really impact, cause many still go to the movie for the experience.
In fact this year seems movies did better than ever. I counted at least 5 movies this year alone that made it to the most revenue of all time. Spiderman, Star Wars, Scorpion King, Harry Potter and LOTR. So don't tell me they are hurting
The commerical they have show makeup artists and stuff acting like they don't get paid. Bull, they don't get paid royalties, they get paid upfront. So as long as they make a movie they are getting paid regardless of how it does at the box office.
Silly MPAA.
And anyone can save up 8-10 dollars to go to a movie or 5-7 for matinee. Give me a break. And you don't have to buy any popcorn or anything just go. And DVD's are not that expensive. They are the same price as VHS was when it came out. 15-30 dollars on average. There are also ways to fine the bargain dvds' Hollywood video and such sale previewed DVD's for 9.99.
And then there is renting for 3.99.
So no one has an excuse on either end. Not the MPAA, or the viewer.
MPAA is saying that it hurts the movie industry. I say it doesn't really impact, cause many still go to the movie for the experience.
In fact this year seems movies did better than ever. I counted at least 5 movies this year alone that made it to the most revenue of all time. Spiderman, Star Wars, Scorpion King, Harry Potter and LOTR. So don't tell me they are hurting
The commerical they have show makeup artists and stuff acting like they don't get paid. Bull, they don't get paid royalties, they get paid upfront. So as long as they make a movie they are getting paid regardless of how it does at the box office.
Silly MPAA.
And anyone can save up 8-10 dollars to go to a movie or 5-7 for matinee. Give me a break. And you don't have to buy any popcorn or anything just go. And DVD's are not that expensive. They are the same price as VHS was when it came out. 15-30 dollars on average. There are also ways to fine the bargain dvds' Hollywood video and such sale previewed DVD's for 9.99.
And then there is renting for 3.99.
So no one has an excuse on either end. Not the MPAA, or the viewer.
moovieboy
03-12-2003, 12:47 AM
In fact this year seems movies did better than ever. I counted at least 5 movies this year alone that made it to the most revenue of all time. Spiderman, Star Wars, Scorpion King, Harry Potter and LOTR. So don't tell me they are hurting
That's not correct... If the entire movie industry shared its profits, THEN a statement like that might apply.
But, let's break down your example:
Each of those films came from a separate studio; Sony, Fox/Lucasfilm, Universal, Warner Brothers and New Line respectively... So, each of these major players only have ONE home run for the year.
Now, after these "profits" get gobbled up by expenses, promotions and advertising (P&A), plus the individual producers, actors, etc that had back-end deals... whatever is finally left over doesn't just get put in the trunk of the CEO...
That leftover profit is usually helping a studio recover from films that underperformed. Remember Orion Pictures? They had great hits with "Dances with Wolves" and "Silence of the Lambs," but the money from even those films couldn't keep the studio afloat! Same with Carloco (spelling?), and they had T2 and Basic Instinct under their belt!
That's why the industry calls big films like LOTR "tent poles." They hold up the rest of the studio's circus tent.
Studios are always worried about making pictures that don't scream "I'll make you half a billion dollars!" Dropping $50-70 million on a film that ulimately flops kills careers and sinks companies... They feel it's safer to say "No" to a project for any reason...
Now, enter a bean counter. He brings the producers this simplified equation:
a) 10 million folks DOWNLOADED your last BIG movie instead of paying for it (or instead of going to see it again)
b) The average ticket price they would have paid is $7.50
c) Your film (and your studio) lost $75 million in potential profits.:eek:
Now, what IF that $75 million could have made the difference between "greenlighting" a different film or saying "no?"
Guess who hurts from that? All the crew members who would've had another film/job that year.
Even if it meant just telling the film to cut back on their production budget, that too means jobs. Like hiring only a staff of 6 CG guys instead of the originally needed 10. You wanna tell those other four guys "they're not hurting?"
Scary worst-case situation? What if Warner Brothers had decided this $75 million meant turning down a "very risky $57 million project from an unproven directing team"... and the MATRIX was NEVER MADE???:surprised
Yeah, yeah, that's a big exaggeration :D, but is the MPAA lying about piracy hurting people? No. Is the truth getting stretched to make their point? Sure. Because other factors also create lost jobs: Runaway production, union strikes, SAG's current battles over Rule One enforcement, 9/11, bad economy, etc, etc...
So, the MPAA isn't being silly. They have a good point. They just don't know what the hell to do about the problem except hope to work off of guilt, fear, and waving around a huge axe in new technologies that will give consumers a big pain the arse!
-Tom :D
That's not correct... If the entire movie industry shared its profits, THEN a statement like that might apply.
But, let's break down your example:
Each of those films came from a separate studio; Sony, Fox/Lucasfilm, Universal, Warner Brothers and New Line respectively... So, each of these major players only have ONE home run for the year.
Now, after these "profits" get gobbled up by expenses, promotions and advertising (P&A), plus the individual producers, actors, etc that had back-end deals... whatever is finally left over doesn't just get put in the trunk of the CEO...
That leftover profit is usually helping a studio recover from films that underperformed. Remember Orion Pictures? They had great hits with "Dances with Wolves" and "Silence of the Lambs," but the money from even those films couldn't keep the studio afloat! Same with Carloco (spelling?), and they had T2 and Basic Instinct under their belt!
That's why the industry calls big films like LOTR "tent poles." They hold up the rest of the studio's circus tent.
Studios are always worried about making pictures that don't scream "I'll make you half a billion dollars!" Dropping $50-70 million on a film that ulimately flops kills careers and sinks companies... They feel it's safer to say "No" to a project for any reason...
Now, enter a bean counter. He brings the producers this simplified equation:
a) 10 million folks DOWNLOADED your last BIG movie instead of paying for it (or instead of going to see it again)
b) The average ticket price they would have paid is $7.50
c) Your film (and your studio) lost $75 million in potential profits.:eek:
Now, what IF that $75 million could have made the difference between "greenlighting" a different film or saying "no?"
Guess who hurts from that? All the crew members who would've had another film/job that year.
Even if it meant just telling the film to cut back on their production budget, that too means jobs. Like hiring only a staff of 6 CG guys instead of the originally needed 10. You wanna tell those other four guys "they're not hurting?"
Scary worst-case situation? What if Warner Brothers had decided this $75 million meant turning down a "very risky $57 million project from an unproven directing team"... and the MATRIX was NEVER MADE???:surprised
Yeah, yeah, that's a big exaggeration :D, but is the MPAA lying about piracy hurting people? No. Is the truth getting stretched to make their point? Sure. Because other factors also create lost jobs: Runaway production, union strikes, SAG's current battles over Rule One enforcement, 9/11, bad economy, etc, etc...
So, the MPAA isn't being silly. They have a good point. They just don't know what the hell to do about the problem except hope to work off of guilt, fear, and waving around a huge axe in new technologies that will give consumers a big pain the arse!
-Tom :D
googlo
03-12-2003, 04:19 AM
a) 10 million folks DOWNLOADED your last BIG movie instead of paying for it (or instead of going to see it again)
That doesn't mean there would have been 10 million more paying views of the movie though.
I think it's ironic too that Hollywood would do something like this in light of a lot of the movies they produce and the messages they contain.
They want people to behave and yet produce movies that promote just the opposite kind of behaviour. It's like they are saying "Behave! Now watch how cool or justifieable it is not too!".
One time when I was in traffic school for a speeding ticket the teacher had commented how the lawmakers and auto industry tell you to drive safely and follow the rules of law, but then when you turn on the t.v. the very commercials advertising their product (automobiles) show people driving in highly dangerous and racey manuevers that the very people they are advertising too would NEVER be able to do so legally.
It's like the message is to behave, but to get you interested in wanting their product they use the opposite messages! Everyone was laughing about it, but from a psychological/social stand point it seems kind of serious to me if you think about it.
That doesn't mean there would have been 10 million more paying views of the movie though.
I think it's ironic too that Hollywood would do something like this in light of a lot of the movies they produce and the messages they contain.
They want people to behave and yet produce movies that promote just the opposite kind of behaviour. It's like they are saying "Behave! Now watch how cool or justifieable it is not too!".
One time when I was in traffic school for a speeding ticket the teacher had commented how the lawmakers and auto industry tell you to drive safely and follow the rules of law, but then when you turn on the t.v. the very commercials advertising their product (automobiles) show people driving in highly dangerous and racey manuevers that the very people they are advertising too would NEVER be able to do so legally.
It's like the message is to behave, but to get you interested in wanting their product they use the opposite messages! Everyone was laughing about it, but from a psychological/social stand point it seems kind of serious to me if you think about it.
moovieboy
03-12-2003, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by googlo
That doesn't mean there would have been 10 million more paying views of the movie though.
I think it's ironic too that Hollywood would do something like this in light of a lot of the movies they produce and the messages they contain.
First, that's why it says "simplified" and "potential profits" :D But, even if such estimates are off by 2/3... that's still $25 mill and that makes studio heads take note.
Second, sure, Hollywood's behavior could be considered ironic, but it's still entirely beside the point... Would it be better if, in Hollywood fashion, they dramatically bash down your front door and beat the tar out of you for piracy? Make ya walk the plank over shark-infested waters? :D
-Tom
That doesn't mean there would have been 10 million more paying views of the movie though.
I think it's ironic too that Hollywood would do something like this in light of a lot of the movies they produce and the messages they contain.
First, that's why it says "simplified" and "potential profits" :D But, even if such estimates are off by 2/3... that's still $25 mill and that makes studio heads take note.
Second, sure, Hollywood's behavior could be considered ironic, but it's still entirely beside the point... Would it be better if, in Hollywood fashion, they dramatically bash down your front door and beat the tar out of you for piracy? Make ya walk the plank over shark-infested waters? :D
-Tom
artistx
03-12-2003, 08:35 AM
I think something should be done about the bootlegging. I have a small wallet so I usually tape off of TV every other day and watch all the tapings on the weekends (isn't that so sad :cry: ) Yeah, I think my body makeup is probably 95% ramen noodle now.... I really understand where that guy, who goes out on Saturday nights with his girlfriend, is coming from. What ever happened to the dollar movies? I really miss those.
Looking at Flog's example, wouldn't you legally have to say yes to a contract of some sort before you were obligated to pay for a downloaded movie? There would have to be fine print somewhere. Otherwise, one might argue that they didn't understand the nature of what they were downloading or that they downloaded it by mistake or that they didn't know the movie wasn't free viewing. If you can charge this way then why give them the whole movie? Just charge them halfway through and then charge them again to see the rest. :) (Ok, that's pretty mean).
I've never downloaded anything (that had to be paid for) without paying for it first. I'm just curious. Has anyone been a victim of this pay-after-you-download bit or is Flog's solution completely concocted/hypothetical? I've had unexpected time bombs from shareware, but it's not the same thing...
Looking at Flog's example, wouldn't you legally have to say yes to a contract of some sort before you were obligated to pay for a downloaded movie? There would have to be fine print somewhere. Otherwise, one might argue that they didn't understand the nature of what they were downloading or that they downloaded it by mistake or that they didn't know the movie wasn't free viewing. If you can charge this way then why give them the whole movie? Just charge them halfway through and then charge them again to see the rest. :) (Ok, that's pretty mean).
I've never downloaded anything (that had to be paid for) without paying for it first. I'm just curious. Has anyone been a victim of this pay-after-you-download bit or is Flog's solution completely concocted/hypothetical? I've had unexpected time bombs from shareware, but it's not the same thing...
kwshipman
03-12-2003, 04:36 PM
My bigest argument with the above example is that most people that download movies arnt going to pay to see them anyways. I have downloaded a couple, all were out of the theaters already, so there was no loss on ticket sales. One after watching I bought on DVD, the other two I had wanted to see, but wasnt going to pay to rent them. So if I had downloaded them or not, the industry was going to make the same amount. Actually more, because of watching the crapy version of one, it made me want to buy it. No harm done to the industry yet I am some sort of evil that needs to be stoped because I am making thoes poor employees and their families starve to death because I downloaded a movie. Next we will probably be told we are funding terorism.
Flog
03-12-2003, 05:16 PM
I've never downloaded anything (that had to be paid for) without paying for it first. I'm just curious. Has anyone been a victim of this pay-after-you-download bit or is Flog's solution completely concocted/hypothetical? I've had unexpected time bombs from shareware, but it's not the same thing
Nah it was hypothetical, but sure would be funny. You download 50 movies watch em and next bill you get for internet service is like 50 more dollars than you expected. LOL. Make Kazaa put up a disclaimer about movies that you find on their tool.
Disclaimer"some movies are pay per view movies and charges will be made to your ISP provider, the charge will not exceed 2 dollars and have a minimum payment of 1 dollar. So beware. You will not be charged more than 2 dollars and anyone here cannot charge more than two dollars for this. You must buy our special program if you would like your movies to be charged and must be owned or a distributor for the film industry before you can charge anyone. You can contest the charges but by contesting the charges you admit to downloading bootleg copies of a movie and can and will be fined penalties by the Federal Government. "
That way you don't have fools coping off warez and charging people secretly. And the movie industry would have to pay Kazaa a fee to put their movies online. In turn Kazaa puts up the message so people can not contest the charges, but the charges will not exceed 2 dollars. Lower than a rental.
Nah it was hypothetical, but sure would be funny. You download 50 movies watch em and next bill you get for internet service is like 50 more dollars than you expected. LOL. Make Kazaa put up a disclaimer about movies that you find on their tool.
Disclaimer"some movies are pay per view movies and charges will be made to your ISP provider, the charge will not exceed 2 dollars and have a minimum payment of 1 dollar. So beware. You will not be charged more than 2 dollars and anyone here cannot charge more than two dollars for this. You must buy our special program if you would like your movies to be charged and must be owned or a distributor for the film industry before you can charge anyone. You can contest the charges but by contesting the charges you admit to downloading bootleg copies of a movie and can and will be fined penalties by the Federal Government. "
That way you don't have fools coping off warez and charging people secretly. And the movie industry would have to pay Kazaa a fee to put their movies online. In turn Kazaa puts up the message so people can not contest the charges, but the charges will not exceed 2 dollars. Lower than a rental.
kwshipman
03-12-2003, 06:49 PM
I would gladly pay 1 or 2 dollars for a quality download, once the technology is a little more refined. I mean we already have pay per view movies on cable and satalite systems that are around 4 or 5 dollars. But think of the oppertunity, the movie companies could also have older movies available not just new releases. If that service was available I would get one of thoes Shuttle systems connected to my TV. Even if it was set up so that it can only be viewd once, or for one day, that is the way satalites do it.
TheWraith
03-12-2003, 09:11 PM
these kids download movies for a couple reasons, but hating the movie experience isn't one of them. at least not for the majority. even if you come up with a pay per view scheme that invovles movies that are still in theaters, they will still be distro'd freely. if they have to they will just output to a vcr and then reencode it onto the puter. so i would be against that whole pay per view idea. the only reason theres so many newer movies on the top ten gross list is because it didn't friggin' cost $9 a ticket to go see E.T. So of course these newer crappy movies are still going to bring in a lot of dough. but at the same time the giant leap in ticket prices ARE keeping some people from seeing the movies in the theater and persuading them to say that "hey, it's cheaper and easier just to download a movie. then i don't even have to get off my fat ass to get in and out of my car!" seriously though, it's gotten rediculously expensive as of late. the economy has been in a decline for a few years now, unemployment continues to grow and now 1 of the 2 industries that used to be unvulnerable to recessions is no longer safe. and besides... programs like kazaa aren't even the problem. kazaa is full of addicts, irc, newsgroups, ftp distros, hotline... thats where all the middle men are. just hop onto an irc server and join some xdcc channel and be overwhelmed at how easy it is to get this crap. it really should be stopped! and god damn it... stop sending dvd screeners to the academy awards viewers. come on! two towers came out to download at dvd quality just a couple weeks after it hit theaters! if you think that didn't hurt the movies gross income... you're VERY wrong. it's sad and it should be stopped. yet these damn academy award screeners get leaked out year after year after year. there really should be a way to track it and bust the bastards stealing them or leaking them.
sorry for rambling. but it is a little upsetting all the stealing that goes on.
sorry for rambling. but it is a little upsetting all the stealing that goes on.
TheWraith
03-12-2003, 09:17 PM
oh yeah, also, that operation buccaneer or whatever the hell it was called was actually very effective... at least for a couple weeks. after DOD got busted the warez groups stopped mass releases for a couple of weeks and it took awhile for it to get back up and running. and going after the groups that release this stuff is the way to go. the only real way to stop it from growing is to scare people and convincing them that they CAN go to jail for this. right now everybody feels they're either too smart, too small or just too dumb to feel the threat. good job for the feds on that bust though. now do it again!
Flog
03-12-2003, 09:45 PM
who's DOD?
Solesurvivor
03-12-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by kwshipman
My bigest argument with the above example is that most people that download movies arnt going to pay to see them anyways. I have downloaded a couple, all were out of the theaters already, so there was no loss on ticket sales. One after watching I bought on DVD, the other two I had wanted to see, but wasnt going to pay to rent them. So if I had downloaded them or not, the industry was going to make the same amount. Actually more, because of watching the crapy version of one, it made me want to buy it. No harm done to the industry yet I am some sort of evil that needs to be stoped because I am making thoes poor employees and their families starve to death because I downloaded a movie. Next we will probably be told we are funding terorism.
amen to that:wip:
there's more to greyscale than black and white, i guess a lot of people just don't understand that
My bigest argument with the above example is that most people that download movies arnt going to pay to see them anyways. I have downloaded a couple, all were out of the theaters already, so there was no loss on ticket sales. One after watching I bought on DVD, the other two I had wanted to see, but wasnt going to pay to rent them. So if I had downloaded them or not, the industry was going to make the same amount. Actually more, because of watching the crapy version of one, it made me want to buy it. No harm done to the industry yet I am some sort of evil that needs to be stoped because I am making thoes poor employees and their families starve to death because I downloaded a movie. Next we will probably be told we are funding terorism.
amen to that:wip:
there's more to greyscale than black and white, i guess a lot of people just don't understand that
moovieboy
03-12-2003, 11:49 PM
My bigest argument with the above example is that most people that download movies arnt going to pay to see them anyways.
That's a theory with no basis in fact... yet.
Look, what you or me and our friends may or may not do is still not "most people." None of us have interviewed thousands of people to get inside why they dowload movies and whether they would have paid for them or not.
And, us folks here on CG Talk are probably NOT a good representative cross-section of "most" downloaders.
So until a decent study is produced showing the behavior of downloaders and so forth, we should all stop preaching such things as fact. They're not.
Taking a given example... If you wanted to see a film, initially didn't want to pay for it, but there was absolutely no way to download it... how many people would still eventually go "what the hell" and go see it with some friends or at least rent it?
Yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah... :D
-Tom
That's a theory with no basis in fact... yet.
Look, what you or me and our friends may or may not do is still not "most people." None of us have interviewed thousands of people to get inside why they dowload movies and whether they would have paid for them or not.
And, us folks here on CG Talk are probably NOT a good representative cross-section of "most" downloaders.
So until a decent study is produced showing the behavior of downloaders and so forth, we should all stop preaching such things as fact. They're not.
Taking a given example... If you wanted to see a film, initially didn't want to pay for it, but there was absolutely no way to download it... how many people would still eventually go "what the hell" and go see it with some friends or at least rent it?
Yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah... :D
-Tom
TheWraith
03-15-2003, 09:43 PM
DOD = Drink Or Die which was a warez group that was pretty big. anyways, the feds busted them and it scared the other groups for a couple weeks. actually i remember hearing that after the DOD bust, internet traffic slowed down by 50%. isonews.com is down, a lot of the dupecheck sites have since been closed down. oh, and as for the government linking p2p file sharing to terrorims, well... you guessed it! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=1211&e=3&u=/pcworld/20030313/tc_pcworld/109808&sid=95612664
VizStorm
03-15-2003, 11:57 PM
What a bunch of crap. You know, all these government agency's who are out to stop file sharing really suck. If none of these guys personally use "illegal" copies of software themselves, the only reason is that the government buys them anything they need or want anyways. Furthermore, the only reason the government is able to fund their agencies is because of us (Tax Payers/Victims). I think the use of copied content/software alone is justifiable based on the single fact that our tax system is unethical, unfair, unjust, and immoral. Who is there to say that the government is commenting crimes and breaking laws? The government punishes us the more successful we are, I say free the warez and screw the government!
VizStorm
03-16-2003, 12:01 AM
got to fix those spelling errors :) -
agencies
committing
there is probably more, but...
agencies
committing
there is probably more, but...
moovieboy
03-16-2003, 01:23 AM
Vizstorm, based on that rant, I'd say you've got more important issues than spelling:
The government and their evil tax system is unfair, so I'm justified in hacking me a copy of "Two Towers?":surprised
Trust me, Jean Valjean you're not :D
-Tom
The government and their evil tax system is unfair, so I'm justified in hacking me a copy of "Two Towers?":surprised
Trust me, Jean Valjean you're not :D
-Tom
VizStorm
03-16-2003, 02:09 AM
Look, I'm just saying that just because the powers that be (whether corporations or government) make laws and tell you what is "illegal" doesn't mean it is ethically or morally correct and it should not blindly be accepted.
Because our powers as citizens have slowly been reduced, I kinda consider the whole p2p file trading a little revolt; a way to have a voice. A democracy by definition gives its power to the people, but what power do we really have? How many issues are you REALLY allowed to vote on? None. Our only power is to vote on who we would like to represent us, and even our votes are manipulated and mangled by the hands of bureaucracy.
There are several perspectives from which you can make a justifiable case for digital content copying/sharing. I mean we can all buy used products; cars, houses, ect... anything you want from anyone in the world over the internet via ebay. You can even give away the products if you want. However, can you by used software? Can you give software to anyone you want? I guess the whole problem is that its being done on a mass scale, which is a problem inherent in digital content because of communication technology. Was it a problem before all our computers were connected? How much attention was given to the subject when it was just Harry and his buddies in the neighborhood? So, I think this "little revolt" is a voice that says the whole software distribution model should be reconstructed.
Because our powers as citizens have slowly been reduced, I kinda consider the whole p2p file trading a little revolt; a way to have a voice. A democracy by definition gives its power to the people, but what power do we really have? How many issues are you REALLY allowed to vote on? None. Our only power is to vote on who we would like to represent us, and even our votes are manipulated and mangled by the hands of bureaucracy.
There are several perspectives from which you can make a justifiable case for digital content copying/sharing. I mean we can all buy used products; cars, houses, ect... anything you want from anyone in the world over the internet via ebay. You can even give away the products if you want. However, can you by used software? Can you give software to anyone you want? I guess the whole problem is that its being done on a mass scale, which is a problem inherent in digital content because of communication technology. Was it a problem before all our computers were connected? How much attention was given to the subject when it was just Harry and his buddies in the neighborhood? So, I think this "little revolt" is a voice that says the whole software distribution model should be reconstructed.
ricktu
03-16-2003, 03:40 AM
Dont you think Vizstorm that you're little rebellion would have more weight if your chosen method didn't actually benefit you directly. I always thought that standing up for your priciples meant making some form of sacrifice.
Although thinking about it your idea is better. Theres this guy down the road that has this car I like. I think tonight I'll take it as my little "revolt" against "the man" :rolleyes: :surprised :shame:
Richard.
Although thinking about it your idea is better. Theres this guy down the road that has this car I like. I think tonight I'll take it as my little "revolt" against "the man" :rolleyes: :surprised :shame:
Richard.
moovieboy
03-16-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by VizStorm
Look, I'm just saying that just because the powers that be (whether corporations or government) make laws and tell you what is "illegal" doesn't mean it is ethically or morally correct and it should not blindly be accepted.
And when society, most religions, not to mention your mother all all agree that it's morally and ethically wrong to take something you didn't pay for or earn...? Does anyone's ethical standpoint matter?
Because our powers as citizens have slowly been reduced, I kinda consider the whole p2p file trading a little revolt; a way to have a voice
Fer chrissakes. I get really burned when people equate stealing with "a politcal statement."
Look, a revolt is when you lay down in front of a line of tanks... or perch yourself in a redwood, or take to arms to free slaves, end aparteid, or at least get your ass out there and vote and campaign and try to do something about the problems of your world...
You know what a revolt isn't? Hitting the f*cking download button on Kazaa.:annoyed:
Have you boycotted the theatres? Petitioned the exhibitors or the studios? Try to get any celebs behind your cause? Take out a full page ad in Variety? Write your Congressman? Sue a theatre chain? ANYTHING except download files from Singapore and spouting "I'm doing this for America!":surprised
A "revolt" is about sacrificing something to make something better. If you don't want to pay $10 for a movie ticket or $15-$30 for the DVD... Then you don't turn around and sneak into the cinema or download the damned film. YOU DON'T SEE IT AT ALL!
That's like going on a hunger strike and saying it's okay to eat twinkies because they're not really food...
If you do download the film, I believe you forfeit both your right to define it as a "statement" and your right to complain if the MPAA wants a chunk of flesh outta your butt for stealing it.
There are several perspectives from which you can make a justifiable case for digital content copying/sharing. I mean we can all buy used products; cars, houses, ect... anything you want from anyone in the world over the internet via ebay.
All of those kinds of transactions, internet or not, involve the legal transfer of deeds, titles, licenses, etc. There are also the matters of warranties, disclosures (like selling a lemon car as "problem free") and much more. Not to mention receipts, tax forms, deductions and on and on... It is nothing like file swapping in the least.
You can even give away the products if you want.
Same as above. Even giving away a house or car involve paperwork and governmental tracking...
However, can you by used software? Can you give software to anyone you want?
Problem #1) Does anyone want to buy my copy of Photoshop 2? I think I've got a copy of Mac Paint around here somewhere... How much do ya want to bid?
See? Most software becomes worthless within months these days. Where's the market for old (and usually useless) software? A 1988 Toyota at least has some value if it can still operate... How about Illustrator 88?
And guess what? The companies know earlier versions are worthless and they GIVE THEM AWAY! I can't count how many times "Computer Arts," "3D World," and "MacAddict" magazines have had a "XXXXXXX FULL PRODUCT, ORIGINALLY WORTH....ON THIS DISC!" Bryce, Poser, and many others have given me free early versions! Legally! Beat that!
Problem #2) I can't prove to Adobe that I'm really selling/giving you my software without having already made a backup for myself. Otherwise, we'd all do that and make a lot of phony transactions until 1 legit copy fed thousands of computers...
Problem #3) Even if I could sell you my photoshop 7... Does that mean I lose my rights to buy only an upgrade for photoshop 8? Only you could upgrade? And you didn't even pay full price for 7? Screw that! I'm keeping my old photoshops! :D
I guess the whole problem is that its being done on a mass scale, which is a problem inherent in digital content because of communication technology. Was it a problem before all our computers were connected? How much attention was given to the subject when it was just Harry and his buddies in the neighborhood?
That's it in a nutshell. When one mosquito is in the room, it's an annoyance. When you're up to your top knot in a swarm... ya kind a pay attention :D
So, I think this "little revolt" is a voice that says the whole software distribution model should be reconstructed.
I'm sorry, but I've seen others use the "outmoded distribution model" phrase to justify their theivery around here and it still p*sses me off to no end. It's starting to sound like an empty $10 phrase that too many folks around here parrot without backing up with anything that REALLY justifies their actions...
Yeah, in the end, this is still just my opinion (read: RANT) but come on people! If any of you really feel that strongly about film/video prices or even "distribution models" (grrrrrr) are you actually doing something about it?
Ripping from netfilx sure as hell isn't going to get anyone closer to a solution, is it???
-Tom
ricktu, just saw your much more succinct response as I was typing. Thank you :D
Look, I'm just saying that just because the powers that be (whether corporations or government) make laws and tell you what is "illegal" doesn't mean it is ethically or morally correct and it should not blindly be accepted.
And when society, most religions, not to mention your mother all all agree that it's morally and ethically wrong to take something you didn't pay for or earn...? Does anyone's ethical standpoint matter?
Because our powers as citizens have slowly been reduced, I kinda consider the whole p2p file trading a little revolt; a way to have a voice
Fer chrissakes. I get really burned when people equate stealing with "a politcal statement."
Look, a revolt is when you lay down in front of a line of tanks... or perch yourself in a redwood, or take to arms to free slaves, end aparteid, or at least get your ass out there and vote and campaign and try to do something about the problems of your world...
You know what a revolt isn't? Hitting the f*cking download button on Kazaa.:annoyed:
Have you boycotted the theatres? Petitioned the exhibitors or the studios? Try to get any celebs behind your cause? Take out a full page ad in Variety? Write your Congressman? Sue a theatre chain? ANYTHING except download files from Singapore and spouting "I'm doing this for America!":surprised
A "revolt" is about sacrificing something to make something better. If you don't want to pay $10 for a movie ticket or $15-$30 for the DVD... Then you don't turn around and sneak into the cinema or download the damned film. YOU DON'T SEE IT AT ALL!
That's like going on a hunger strike and saying it's okay to eat twinkies because they're not really food...
If you do download the film, I believe you forfeit both your right to define it as a "statement" and your right to complain if the MPAA wants a chunk of flesh outta your butt for stealing it.
There are several perspectives from which you can make a justifiable case for digital content copying/sharing. I mean we can all buy used products; cars, houses, ect... anything you want from anyone in the world over the internet via ebay.
All of those kinds of transactions, internet or not, involve the legal transfer of deeds, titles, licenses, etc. There are also the matters of warranties, disclosures (like selling a lemon car as "problem free") and much more. Not to mention receipts, tax forms, deductions and on and on... It is nothing like file swapping in the least.
You can even give away the products if you want.
Same as above. Even giving away a house or car involve paperwork and governmental tracking...
However, can you by used software? Can you give software to anyone you want?
Problem #1) Does anyone want to buy my copy of Photoshop 2? I think I've got a copy of Mac Paint around here somewhere... How much do ya want to bid?
See? Most software becomes worthless within months these days. Where's the market for old (and usually useless) software? A 1988 Toyota at least has some value if it can still operate... How about Illustrator 88?
And guess what? The companies know earlier versions are worthless and they GIVE THEM AWAY! I can't count how many times "Computer Arts," "3D World," and "MacAddict" magazines have had a "XXXXXXX FULL PRODUCT, ORIGINALLY WORTH....ON THIS DISC!" Bryce, Poser, and many others have given me free early versions! Legally! Beat that!
Problem #2) I can't prove to Adobe that I'm really selling/giving you my software without having already made a backup for myself. Otherwise, we'd all do that and make a lot of phony transactions until 1 legit copy fed thousands of computers...
Problem #3) Even if I could sell you my photoshop 7... Does that mean I lose my rights to buy only an upgrade for photoshop 8? Only you could upgrade? And you didn't even pay full price for 7? Screw that! I'm keeping my old photoshops! :D
I guess the whole problem is that its being done on a mass scale, which is a problem inherent in digital content because of communication technology. Was it a problem before all our computers were connected? How much attention was given to the subject when it was just Harry and his buddies in the neighborhood?
That's it in a nutshell. When one mosquito is in the room, it's an annoyance. When you're up to your top knot in a swarm... ya kind a pay attention :D
So, I think this "little revolt" is a voice that says the whole software distribution model should be reconstructed.
I'm sorry, but I've seen others use the "outmoded distribution model" phrase to justify their theivery around here and it still p*sses me off to no end. It's starting to sound like an empty $10 phrase that too many folks around here parrot without backing up with anything that REALLY justifies their actions...
Yeah, in the end, this is still just my opinion (read: RANT) but come on people! If any of you really feel that strongly about film/video prices or even "distribution models" (grrrrrr) are you actually doing something about it?
Ripping from netfilx sure as hell isn't going to get anyone closer to a solution, is it???
-Tom
ricktu, just saw your much more succinct response as I was typing. Thank you :D
TheWraith
03-16-2003, 04:52 AM
stealing is stealing. thats the bottom line. although i wouldn't compare warez to stealing cars but perhaps a candy bar or something. i mean, you see a candy bar just sitting there, you're not going to pay for the damned thing. if it just sits there it will go stale and eventually be thrown away anyways right? so maybe you take it. well guess what? it's STILL stealing. are you putting hershey's out of business? no. but lets look at the fact that the DOD bust... that was several terrabytes of data. and it's being distro'd through tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. well thats a lot of candy bein' passed around. true, candy and warez are apple and oranges, but it's a better comparison than stealing cars at least i think. should the poor kid stealing the candy and eating it cuz his family is poor and can't afford to spend $2,000 for a maya candy bar be locked up in prison for several years? no, i don't believe he should. should he perhaps be charged with stealing and have it go on his record and have to do some community service? sure! why not? now, if the kid is stealing truckloads of this maya candy and selling it on the streets nice and cheap or making money off of it... then file some major criminal charges. otherwise, just leave the poor college student and hobbyist alone.
Paul Spence
03-16-2003, 10:25 AM
.. I could'nt agree more with most of the folks here.......movies on your computer are not fun. No matter how ergonomic the chair, keyboard, and rollermouse - or how flowing the homemade coffee and cakes, even the smoking-allowed policy of homeviewing will not drag me out of the big screen experience.
I guess the trailer for anti-pirating is a tax right off? The journo's have to right about something eh? I reckon the movie houses are winning again..........they're not only getting folks fighting over sneek previews of their blockbusters, but they're getting the nerds to ensure their marketing departments are up to speed on what's hot. And hey.....they're gonna charge our credit cards for the whole thing.
I can't believe it's not butter either........some sort of plastic maybe?
:thumbsup:
I guess the trailer for anti-pirating is a tax right off? The journo's have to right about something eh? I reckon the movie houses are winning again..........they're not only getting folks fighting over sneek previews of their blockbusters, but they're getting the nerds to ensure their marketing departments are up to speed on what's hot. And hey.....they're gonna charge our credit cards for the whole thing.
I can't believe it's not butter either........some sort of plastic maybe?
:thumbsup:
VizStorm
03-16-2003, 09:50 PM
moovieboy,
You obviously have much more time to devote to the discussion than I do, so I'll just touch on some of the weak arguments in your novel of a reply. By the way, there is probably no way you would ever be openminded enough to ever look at the situation from a different perspective, I mean come on; your nick on here is "moovieboy" for gods sake.
First of all, you took the whole revolt thing way to literal... I didn't mention anything about laying down in front of tanks or sacrificing my life for the cause. That's why I said "little" revolt.
The fact is, the internet is causing a revolution in the music, movie, and all other content based industries. ITs been a problem with software for a while, but as soon as it exploded with music that whole industry began whinning like little babies.
So you get all the lobbiest for these industries buttering up to the government to take care of the problem. However, the problem is that the more government gets envolved with anything, its a bad thing and rights get taken away slowly. If the government had its way, we would all be paying to post our opinions on here and we would all be taxed for our internet usage. The problem should be worked out between these industries and us, the consumers. And don't tell me you haven't or don't download music, its ok to admit it, its a good thing. Because by doing so... your saying... hey music industry, I'm sick of paying $18 dollars for a cd, and I want to be able to get only songs that I want and put them on my own cd; so hey, change your industry. As a result, they will change their model because they have to, because they can't survive unless they do. You see, that's the whole process of what I was referring to as our voice. The same goes with the movie industry. The same thing is happening to them now.
All of those kinds of transactions, internet or not, involve the legal transfer of deeds, titles, licenses, etc. There are also the matters of warranties, disclosures (like selling a lemon car as "problem free") and much more. Not to mention receipts, tax forms, deductions and on and on... It is nothing like file swapping in the least.
This doesn't make any sense or a point. My point was that anyone can sell anything they already own, and no this does not have to invovle titles, licenses, ect.... I can sell my computer to anyone for cash period. And the point is that by the screwed up laws... doing this with software is illegal.
Problem #1) Does anyone want to buy my copy of Photoshop 2? I think I've got a copy of Mac Paint around here somewhere... How much do ya want to bid?
This is exactly my point. I'll give you an example. I bought 3D Studio Max v.1.2 for $2,700 and 3 months later a new version was out and I think around 6 months another version was out. To the day, this is one of the dumbest purchases I have ever made. But you should have the right to sell your copy photoshop.
Your "problem #2 and #3 are just proof that things should be changed.
That's it in a nutshell. When one mosquito is in the room, it's an annoyance. When you're up to your top knot in a swarm... ya kind a pay attention
So using this basis, its ok to allow murder as long as its not in swarms? If we are going to have laws then lets keep things consistent. Yea, for music sharing/ect... things have become a swarm. It all goes back to my points above.
ricktu,
Dont you think Vizstorm that you're little rebellion would have more weight if your chosen method didn't actually benefit you directly.
It has much more weight when it benefits everyone.
Although thinking about it your idea is better. Theres this guy down the road that has this car I like. I think tonight I'll take it as my little "revolt" against "the man"
This just doesn't even relate to the whole argument. However, what if he could clone his car for you? Of course a car is much more conspicuous than a cd.
I don't for a second believe that any of you are as "innoncent" as your making yourselves out to be.
You obviously have much more time to devote to the discussion than I do, so I'll just touch on some of the weak arguments in your novel of a reply. By the way, there is probably no way you would ever be openminded enough to ever look at the situation from a different perspective, I mean come on; your nick on here is "moovieboy" for gods sake.
First of all, you took the whole revolt thing way to literal... I didn't mention anything about laying down in front of tanks or sacrificing my life for the cause. That's why I said "little" revolt.
The fact is, the internet is causing a revolution in the music, movie, and all other content based industries. ITs been a problem with software for a while, but as soon as it exploded with music that whole industry began whinning like little babies.
So you get all the lobbiest for these industries buttering up to the government to take care of the problem. However, the problem is that the more government gets envolved with anything, its a bad thing and rights get taken away slowly. If the government had its way, we would all be paying to post our opinions on here and we would all be taxed for our internet usage. The problem should be worked out between these industries and us, the consumers. And don't tell me you haven't or don't download music, its ok to admit it, its a good thing. Because by doing so... your saying... hey music industry, I'm sick of paying $18 dollars for a cd, and I want to be able to get only songs that I want and put them on my own cd; so hey, change your industry. As a result, they will change their model because they have to, because they can't survive unless they do. You see, that's the whole process of what I was referring to as our voice. The same goes with the movie industry. The same thing is happening to them now.
All of those kinds of transactions, internet or not, involve the legal transfer of deeds, titles, licenses, etc. There are also the matters of warranties, disclosures (like selling a lemon car as "problem free") and much more. Not to mention receipts, tax forms, deductions and on and on... It is nothing like file swapping in the least.
This doesn't make any sense or a point. My point was that anyone can sell anything they already own, and no this does not have to invovle titles, licenses, ect.... I can sell my computer to anyone for cash period. And the point is that by the screwed up laws... doing this with software is illegal.
Problem #1) Does anyone want to buy my copy of Photoshop 2? I think I've got a copy of Mac Paint around here somewhere... How much do ya want to bid?
This is exactly my point. I'll give you an example. I bought 3D Studio Max v.1.2 for $2,700 and 3 months later a new version was out and I think around 6 months another version was out. To the day, this is one of the dumbest purchases I have ever made. But you should have the right to sell your copy photoshop.
Your "problem #2 and #3 are just proof that things should be changed.
That's it in a nutshell. When one mosquito is in the room, it's an annoyance. When you're up to your top knot in a swarm... ya kind a pay attention
So using this basis, its ok to allow murder as long as its not in swarms? If we are going to have laws then lets keep things consistent. Yea, for music sharing/ect... things have become a swarm. It all goes back to my points above.
ricktu,
Dont you think Vizstorm that you're little rebellion would have more weight if your chosen method didn't actually benefit you directly.
It has much more weight when it benefits everyone.
Although thinking about it your idea is better. Theres this guy down the road that has this car I like. I think tonight I'll take it as my little "revolt" against "the man"
This just doesn't even relate to the whole argument. However, what if he could clone his car for you? Of course a car is much more conspicuous than a cd.
I don't for a second believe that any of you are as "innoncent" as your making yourselves out to be.
VizStorm
03-16-2003, 11:56 PM
Oh by the way-- as far as movie piracy... it doesn't make sense to me. I'd never download movies or copy them. I like the packaging, quality, experience and content too much and think dvds are certainly worth the money. Also with music, i've found it more of a hassle to download music and make cds rather than buying a cd. Sometimes it is convienient to download music though. I've tried the Press Play music service and found it a total joke, it lacks quality artist and is too expensive.
CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 01:00 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.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.