My idea for the movie industry's piracy "problem"

while i agree that piracy is wrong, what i don't like is the "its funding terrorism". I have yet to see evidence of this.

Also piracy cant be hurting that bad.

Jurassic World (2015) More at IMDbPro »
Budget
$150,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend
$204,600,000 (USA) (14 June 2015) (4,274 Screens)
$204,600,000 (USA) (12 June 2015) (4,274 Screens)

Gross
$208,800,000 (USA) (15 June 2015)
$204,600,000 (USA) (14 June 2015)
$511,800,000 (Worldwide) (14 June 2015)

Weekend Gross
$204,600,000 (USA) (14 June 2015) (4,274 Screens)
Click to expand...
 
When you can buy a 4k or 1080p 3d full film, the same as gets run in the cinema, online, with good bandwidth servers for £5 on the same release schedule as current dvds are made available worldwide then film piracy will end.

People pay full price for cinema tickets because you get a social experience, a massive screen and full surround sound, the idea that dvd rentals can command the same rate is ridiculous.

I dont bother pirating, it'll end up on film 4 eventually

Also, they need to stop with this hfr nonsense, its not hfr on 3d and even 2d 48 fps should be standard, if not 60, its not like the technology is incapable
 
I've just binned some old VHS box sets of Star Wars (not mine),
I'm not going through the cycle of rebuying content on different formats, so they need to either sell me a licence to watch that film forever, or I'm just going to pirate what I want.
I've had my period of buying new DVD films and music every week, but I'm not willing to spend that kind of money again.

Stuff like Walking Dead I will buy the bluray boxset eventually, but not for plotless **** like Transformers.
 
Caged said:
A lot of people who pirate content wouldn't pay for it even if it were £1 a movie for a 1080p copy you keep forever. There are a large amount of people who build great big FreeNAS boxes or whatever just so they can max out their 150Mb/s connections for 12 hours a day to build up a collection of content they will never watch.

I don't really want to own movies on Blu-ray since it's not likely that I will watch them enough times to make it worth the shelf space. I do like Netflix / Prime as an idea, but the chance of a film just expiring on the service and not being renewed, plus the lack of decent content in the first place makes it a pretty poor option a lot of the time. And also to get the most customers possible, it has to work on crap Internet connections and so the quality suffers.

I don't think £4.49 for an iTunes rental is extortionate though, perhaps if you're used to everything being 'free' then it is, but I don't consider it a barrier to a purchase in the way that £18 CD albums containing mostly filler were. The videos are high quality and streaming to an Apple TV works very well.

I would happily pay £10-15 for a 24 hour rental of a film in a proper HD quality (1080p, 20Mbps+, decent sound) on the same day as the cinema release, but nobody can offer me that.
Click to expand...

I don't think the majority of downloaders wouldn't pay (at all) - a good number pirate for convenience - the customers are there but the media companies aren't catering for them. I shed absolutely no tears for the corporations being ripped off when people have the choice of waiting months or more often years before a TV series comes legally to the UK or pirating it.

I'd say the freeloaders who wouldn't pay anyway probably account for about 1/3rd of the people or pirate and about half do it for a combination of thinking the prices are too high (but would pay something) and convenience and for the larger number its about convenience.

Personally for a number of reasons I don't get to watch movies at the cinema much and don't often enjoy them that much when I do with the average quality of person viewing :( way too many just have no consideration for anyone else. I'd happily pay a fair bit to watch movies in HD at or even soon after release instead of waiting months for the DVD/download to be released...
 
stopper said:
Piracy doesn't hurt them at all.
They make more than enough money to run the entire industry with massive profit, just from licensing to companies like Apple or Amazon. They don't need consumer sales any more.
Click to expand...

i know what you are saying but at the same time they are a business out to make money. as much money as they can.
 
Have a service where you can download films rather than stream and pay a cheaper price than we pay now and have them out from the start rather than trying to force everyone going to the cinema.
 
There are a number of problems. First, they want to con you into paying for the same movie multiple times. You watch it at the cinema, then you buy the DVD. Then it airs on Sky Movies, so you've paid for it again and then when it is on the BBC you've paid yet again, even when you don't watch it.

Another problem is their attempts to con the public. We were told we needed Bluray for high quality images, yet that isn't really true and downloads showed the public that. You can download a 1gb HD version of a movie, yet the 8gb or whatever it is DVD is worse because it uses a long outdated encoding method. They could probably release DVDs with image quality virtually identical to Bluray but it isn't in their interest to because they want to charge 50% more for Bluray, with people thinking the larger capacity is essential.

Finally, none of these industries get the fact people have so many more drains on their disposable income these days. Twenty years ago half the population didn't have big monthly phone contracts, satellite TV subscriptions, electrical upgrades every couple of years (remember when people kept their TV forever?), etc. The value of a movie in the modern world is simply lower because the world has changed.


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
squired said:
Another problem is their attempts to con the public. We were told we needed Bluray for high quality images, yet that isn't really true and downloads showed the public that. You can download a 1gb HD version of a movie, yet the 8gb or whatever it is DVD is worse because it uses a long outdated encoding method. They could probably release DVDs with image quality virtually identical to Bluray but it isn't in their interest to because they want to charge 50% more for Bluray, with people thinking the larger capacity is essential.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain this one. Just because you can fit a heavily compressed H.264 movie into a capacity that a dual layer DVD can hold doesn't mean that a DVD player would be able to deal with it. And I don't see how having an SD DVD with MPEG2 video on it that plays in SD DVD players, and a high definition 'DVD' with H.264 video on it is any different to DVD and Blu-ray now.

Unless you're suggesting that DVD should have used H.264 from the start, which would require time travel.
 
Not a bad idea but deliver the films digitally through streaming services like amazon, google play etc at such a low price people would rather pay a quid to see a decent genuine copy of the movie in full picture / sound quality.
 
Caged said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by squired

Another problem is their attempts to con the public. We were told we needed Bluray for high quality images, yet that isn't really true and downloads showed the public that. You can download a 1gb HD version of a movie, yet the 8gb or whatever it is DVD is worse because it uses a long outdated encoding method. They could probably release DVDs with image quality virtually identical to Bluray but it isn't in their interest to because they want to charge 50% more for Bluray, with people thinking the larger capacity is essential.

You're going to have to explain this one. Just because you can fit a heavily compressed H.264 movie into a capacity that a dual layer DVD can hold doesn't mean that a DVD player would be able to deal with it. And I don't see how having an SD DVD with MPEG2 video on it that plays in SD DVD players, and a high definition 'DVD' with H.264 video on it is any different to DVD and Blu-ray now.

Unless you're suggesting that DVD should have used H.264 from the start, which would require time travel.
Click to expand...

My point here is that you could fit a H.264 video on a DVD that would play on a Bluray player. Most people would not notice a huge difference when comparing it to a Bluray, if they notice one at all. However, they won't do it because they want you to think you need to pay 50% more because it is only possible to have the higher quality image when you have the capacity of a Bluray disk. In fact I'd put money on actual Blurays being killed off if they did this (ok, I know it won't happen). The key point really is that the consumer pays a premium because they are getting Bluray but that premium is a con and unnecessary.


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
adolf hamster said:
The same way the big youtubers can afford to run a business making videos that people can watch for free?
Click to expand...

Yeah... because you'd just love your music or film to stop at a random point and show you an ad. :/

On the grand scheme of things, the film industry is doing just fine. Budgets are bigger than ever, and the big ticket flicks are making money hand over fist.

The only people suffering in this age are the little guys. The independents.

And they NEED to make their product £4.50 a digital rental because of piracy to make their budget back... and to make a profit off of the blood, sweat and tears that they've put in to actually get a film out there without the backing of the big studios and their blank cheques.

Because with that profit, they can make another movie. Just like any other industry.

When you're at ground level and seeing how things really are in the business, you'd be able to see how soul destroying it is for an independent filmmaker to see their film show up on torrents or newsgroups.

It isn't only food off their plates, it's a direct impact on their professional status. When their film isn't making money because everyone's downloading it for free, how can they prove themselves to financiers on their next project? If they don't have a track record of good product (and that DOESN'T mean that their previous films themselves weren't amazing), how can they get the money to expand... and bring audiences more great stuff?

Short answer: They can't. It's a business, like any other.

But people don't make a distinction when they're downloading for free. One film is as good as another.

So I don't think there's any blanketing "the industry" in terms of how you should ethically treat it when it comes to piracy. People don't. They just get what they want to watch -- whether it's a drop in the ocean to Mr. McBillionaire who couldn't care because the film he produced already made countless millions, or made by the little guy sitting in his house wishing that just 50 more people would buy his film... because that might help him get it into Walmart if he could just show those figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom