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

AlecR said:
Why don't they accept that they're never going to win against piracy and instead, offer:

  • The ability to donate any amount of money to those who made the film, so you can get the movie from wherever you want and you can pay the film company if they deserve it
  • Make purchases way cheaper - £4.49 for a 24 hour 720p rental is ridiculous

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

To your first point, things get done because someone can afford to make them happen. If the guaranteed income/revenue/profit is not guaranteed then that's probably a risk.

I broadly agree with your second point. The models in place seem rusty at best.
 
squired said:
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
Click to expand...

A 20Mbps video stream over two hours is 18GB, that's before you add soundtracks and any special features. So it needs a Blu-ray disc to hold it.

Blu-ray costs more than DVD because it costs more to produce and it shifts fewer units, it's that simple.
 
We have this argument a lot at work :D

My personal feeling is that:

1. TV and Film content producers are too greedy, and don't want to collaborate on a system of streaming content to consumers that gives everyone access to what they want without licensing issues.

Netflix/Amazon prime etc go some ways to dealing with this, but fall short. Either with missing content, or content that gets pulled, or simply content that shows up long after it was available to people who pirate.

2. Models like Spotify and Steam work extremely well. They are not perfect, but I personally only use Spotify for music these days, and I buy all my games on Steam. The TV/Film industry is far behind the music and game industries in regards to the levels of content available to them for offline cache/streaming to customers.

3. My internet isn't great, I would struggle to stream at 1080p in real time, I doubt I could even stream at 720p. I have yet to see a TV/Film streaming service that lets you cache the files you download for watching later on.

4. The release delays between Cinema and Blu-Ray etc are needlessly long, why does it take 6 months to go from Cinema to Blu-Ray? By all means I think the Cinema should have content first, but the delay between Cinema and general release should be shorter.

5. In a perfect system content producers should be paid based upon views of their tv shows/films. The good stuff will 100% be watched more, and the people who make good shows/films should be rewarded for that appropriately.

I for one would be happy to pay £15 a month to get a service that could let me watch shows/films as they are shown (in the case of films parity with BR release not cinema), offline cache everything (or stuff I choose), and doesn't have ridiculous licensing issues.

I am sure that a lot of people would pay this too, the industry is missing out on a lot of cash, if they made it easier for people to get content legitimately people simply would not go and p2p download films and shows.
 
Pestilence said:
And they NEED to make their product £4.50 a digital rental because of piracy to make their budget back...
Click to expand...

I very much doubt this.

Anyway, plenty of people are simply not prepared to buy at that price level.

Can you say 100% that they wouldn't get more money at £3/rental? Simply by more people purchasing?
 
Moses said:
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they've considered that and modelled it quite extensively?
Click to expand...

We all know how progressive the movie industry is.

They'd rather spend billions lobbying to keep things they way there were in 1999 than actually consider something new.

You think more people *wouldn't* buy rentals if they were cheaper?

Right now there are two options:
Moan about piracy but keep the same business practices
Change the way they do business to reduce piracy (if it's even significant in the first place, and not just a PR move to lobby for more power).
 
Moses said:
Are they missing out on a lot of cash? Or do they do quite well out of different services offering decent money for exclusivity, etc, etc?
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe they wouldn't overall, who knows? all I know is that the industry complains about piracy yet doesn't embrace the digital delivery mechanisms quite the same way that Music and Games industries do.

I'd like to see this change, I'd like to pay a set monthly fee to legitimately download and watch content that is out there, and for my viewing stats to reward the people who make the content I want to watch.
 
FoxEye said:
** Deleted post removed **
Click to expand...

Here's another point that nails what you said previously... and my setup to it:

There are plenty of great movies (indie and otherwise) to be rented on Amazon Instant Video... for £2.49 (£3.49 HD).

People don't even want to pay that much.

For the little guy... can you even IMAGINE how little cash that is, after Amazon's cut, going into their pockets?

And yet still it somehow isn't cheap enough.

There's nothing wrong with the modelling in that sense -- but there's everything wrong with people's entitled mind set since they can just get it for free if they want. It's the bottom dropped out of ethics.

In fact, I don't even agree with shortening the gap between theatrical and home/VoD releases of films, despite the onset of the "digital age". It keeps theatres in business... and I, for one, would really hate to see the death of the true big screen.
 
How is it my problem if Amazon are taking such a large cut that movies have to be £5 for the "little guys" to make any money?

Isn't that a problem with the distribution chain, that the little guys need to find an alternative to Amazon?

Or should we, as consumers, simply open up our wallets so the mighty Amazon can take a massive cut and the "little guys" can get rich too?

Don't be flippin' daft.

If you can't produce a product at a price people are willing to pay, either try harder, or exit the market and do something else.

Don't blame consumers and tell us we need to pay more than we are wiling to.
 
FoxEye said:
We all know how progressive the movie industry is.

They'd rather spend billions lobbying to keep things they way there were in 1999 than actually consider something new.

You think more people *wouldn't* buy rentals if they were cheaper?

Right now there are two options:
Moan about piracy but keep the same business practices
Change the way they do business to reduce piracy (if it's even significant in the first place, and not just a PR move to lobby for more power).
Click to expand...

The problem is wide open in what you say here.

You say "... the movie industry".

Like it's all one big party for everyone in it.

It isn't. The old guard don't give two ****s whether you download their film, because they're made and whatever they're doing is going to make a killing anyway.

But everyone else can be well and truly ****** up the ring because they don't have the money, the PR, the facilitation to deal with rampant piracy.

The big guys moaning about piracy make me laugh.

The little guys... I feel their pain.

But the people downloading things don't see that. They don't understand the split. It's just another movie to watch.
 
Yeah I do think that cinemas should get a sensible head start on showing content, for a lot of films the opening weekends of a film can actually make the cost of the film + some profit.

I don't see the need to have such long gaps though between the film showing in cinema and the GA of the film to the masses. 3 months or so should be sufficient exclusivity time imo.

About the cheap rental costs. I don't know about you but I like to have fixed costs for services. Having a subscription model where everyone pays a sensible price makes sense. Sure some people will watch a film a night, they are getting a fantastic "deal", but others will watch more sparingly. Things tend to balance out this way, you get heavier users and probably people who will pay but only watch a little, or not at all.
 
FoxEye said:
How is it my problem if Amazon are taking such a large cut that movies have to be £5 for the "little guys" to make any money?

Isn't that a problem with the distribution chain, that the little guys need to find an alternative to Amazon?

Or should we, as consumers, simply open up our wallets so the mighty Amazon can take a massive cut and the "little guys" can get rich too?

Don't be flippin' daft.

If you can't produce a product at a price people are willing to pay, either try harder, or exit the market and do something else.

Don't blame consumers and tell us we need to pay more than we are wiling to.
Click to expand...

Honestly... it sounds like you think any film should be a 50p rental. True?
 
Pestilence said:
Honestly... it sounds like you think any film should be a 50p rental. True?
Click to expand...

Rather than try a straw man or two, why not read my earlier posts where I said what I'm personally prepared to pay. I'll give you a hint: it was more than 50p but less than £3.50.
 
Eulogy said:
Yeah I do think that cinemas should get a sensible head start on showing content, for a lot of films the opening weekends of a film can actually make the cost of the film + some profit.

I don't see the need to have such long gaps though between the film showing in cinema and the GA of the film to the masses. 3 months or so should be sufficient exclusivity time imo.

About the cheap rental costs. I don't know about you but I like to have fixed costs for services. Having a subscription model where everyone pays a sensible price makes sense. Sure some people will watch a film a night, they are getting a fantastic "deal", but others will watch more sparingly. Things tend to balance out this way, you get heavier users and probably people who will pay but only watch a little, or not at all.
Click to expand...

I'd argue for six months over three, to give theatres a proper chance. But I do think the current wait is excessive.

Mind you, there are plenty of films that are released on home video over here before they ever seen the light of day in theatres abroad. And vice versa. That's just the market.
 
FoxEye said:
Rather than try a straw man or two, why not read my earlier posts where I said what I'm personally prepared to pay. I'll give you a hint: it was more than 50p but less than £3.50.
Click to expand...

"Come. It is time to keep your appointment with the Wicker Man."

£3 a perfect price for video games for you too, then?
 
Moses said:
What would be a fair rental price? Where else can you get an hour and half of entertainment for that sort of price? I get it sounds bad, and probably is bad if you want to watch a film every night... but compare it to buying a round, or going out for food, etc.
Click to expand...

A £5 game from Steam will often have 10+ hours of entertainment.

I don't spend money on booze, fags or eating out. So those things are not relevant to me.

Like I said, I'm happy to wait for the films to hit TV. Thus paying *no* money at all to the movie industry to rent films online. If the prices were lowered, I would spend *some* money, probably renting one film a month or something equally low.

SD £2, Not-quite-HD £3. That's what I'd pay.

Most films are crap anyhow. At least with a pint or a meal you know what you're getting. There are no refunds on films that don't live up to their billing.

Pestilence said:
£3 a perfect price for video games for you too, then?
Click to expand...

I wait until games are £5 or less before buying. Why not? They all inevitably end up that price.

I would not throw away £30 on a videogame. Madness.
 
Pestilence said:
I'd argue for six months over three, to give theatres a proper chance. But I do think the current wait is excessive.

Mind you, there are plenty of films that are released on home video over here before they ever seen the light of day in theatres abroad. And vice versa. That's just the market.
Click to expand...

Well quite often stuff has stopped showing in Cinemas, and then there are more delays before it's out on BR. If people haven't had the chance to go the Cinema to watch it in 3 months from release they probably aren't going to, that is plenty of time I think.

I watch films at the cinema pretty often, if something looks good will make the effort to go see it.
 
Eulogy said:
Well quite often stuff has stopped showing in Cinemas, and then there are more delays before it's out on BR. If people haven't had the chance to go the Cinema to watch it in 3 months from release they probably aren't going to, that is plenty of time I think.

I watch films at the cinema pretty often, if something looks good will make the effort to go see it.
Click to expand...

I did agree on gut feeling with 3 months... but it also put the thought into me that 3 months ain't such a big time. So if something was on in the cinema, I might just make the littlest excuse to justify to myself that it's only 3 months away from watching it at home instead.

Six months... I'd be more inclined to make the effort.

A big part of the argument in this thread isn't just rental prices, but also ownership. It's a pity that FoxEye has been suspended, as the next question to come up was how much is acceptable to "own" a film?

And if you can't get 10 hours enjoyment out of a really great film, then I really do pity you.

His comment on only paying a fiver for games on Steam, ever, is merely an uncovering of his mind set: no actual understanding of the business... every understanding of his own wallet.
 
I guess I'm one of those people you'll just never convince that it's worth paying for movies or music in the current offerings.

Although, I'd now like to contradict myself and say that I used to feel the same about games before Steam and CD key resellers came around. Now I pretty much buy 99% of all games I play.

I'll give you an example why and this might ring true for many people.

'Blackhat' is a movie I wasted 25min of my life on before turning it off and deleting the file. On iTunes right now it's 25 bucks (NZD) for High Def with no option to rent. I really liked the sound of the movie before actually sitting down to watch it. Paying $25 for rubbish just doesn't seem like an intelligent way to spend money. I would've felt blue, screwed and tattooed and resenting wasting money. When I buy games, I first watch actual game play. I see the game as it will play. With movies I can't. You can only read a load of filler and marketing rubbish before having to take a punt to see if it's worth it.


To convert me to paying for movies, they would have to make every single release on iTunes (or whatever other mediums are available - just using iTunes as an example) available for rent. For an absolute maximum or 10 bucks. Realistically 5 bucks. If I want to watch it again, I can do so for $1. For as many times as I want, I only pay $1 each time I hire it to watch again. If I don't like the movie after 20min, I want to be able to return it and higher another one (cost free as they already have my initial hire money) in its place.

I also want to add that it has to be HD as a standard. Get rid of SD and only offer in HD and not use HD as some carrot for higher prices. Then I'll pirate it out of principle.

Do these things above or something similar, and I'll pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom