Film Piracy (opinions and box office effect)

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Yes, it is. It takes less than 30 seconds to grab a movie that's available on Google Play, as long as you've already done it once and set up your credit card info. All of this year's major films received a digital release while they were still available in theatres. Actually, there are some films I couldn't even easily see in a theatre near me (The Little Prince, Hunt for the Wilderpeople) that received a digital release within a few months of theatrical release.

 

They look very good on a large TV, very close to blu-ray quality. About as good as blu-ray rips, unless it's uncompressed. Which no one I know actually goes for, because 40 GB.

If you say so, the stuff i got from Google play looks like total crap, not even close to the average 4GB BR rips, not even as good as Netflix.

[The Panda]

7 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

Most certainly... 

 

Those films did well but I could imagine in the past they would have made a lot more after release..

 

I think the obsession over box office gross should not be the focus...

 

Piracy really has diminished the aftermarket for films.

 

 

I'd agree with this.  Most pirate copies of new releases suck until a few months after anyways, but I think you can really see a hit in the Home Video market (I'm not sure what the sales for streaming are, so that's another factor you have to take in).  

 

Also, you have to take into consideration that the demographic of people that pirate are specific.  Going off of the 10 most pirated movies of 2015, the main demographic of people that pirate are the same demographic that watch movies like Interstellar, Furious 7, Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, etc.  In other words, I'm making the assumption that it's your reddit demographic, primarily.  Obviously, another large amount are overseas audiences who might not be able to get ahold of the movie as easily.

 

The movies that are being pirated the most are already making quite a large hall at the box office, would they make more without pirating?  Maybe.  But I doubt pirating was making Universal lose sleep over Furious 7's box office performance.

 

I'd argue that the market that is actually being hurt by pirating is your DVD/Blu-Ray market.  I think if studios want to beat pirating, they simply need to offer a better alternative to pirating.

 

As for the Box Office, I don't see why ticket price inflation would be caused by pirating.  Maybe they're correlated, but it's a flawed argument to say ticket prices are rising because piracy (in fact, it's just as easy to argue the inverse.  Piracy is rising because ticket prices are increasing).  If I am a studio/movie theater, and I see that piracy is affecting theater attendance, why would I raise ticket prices?  That would indicate a decrease in the demand for movie tickets, and so it'd be counterintuitive to raise prices, as that'd just lead to lower ticket sales.

 

If piracy is actually affecting the box office, then studios and theaters need to find ways to make movie going either more desirable (such as the luxury loungers at cinemark), cheaper (such as discount tuesdays), or both.  But I'd reckon ticket prices are going up because of overall market inflation, not because of piracy, piracy would not make sense.

[GirafficPark]

I think the problem in home video is that DVD looks like shite on a big TV and BR is just horrible from the UX point of view. People dont want ads, they dont want menu after menu, forced firmware updates to play (solely because of DRM that doesn't work anyway), warnings and all the other junk they force on you. Its not 1986 any more. Many people also have crap internet so downloading is good, streaming is not.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

If you say so, the stuff i got from Google play looks like total crap, not even close to the average 4GB BR rips, not even as good as Netflix.

 

Genuinely curious. How were you watching it on your TV? I presumed HDMI cable vs. Chromecast would look the same. Used Chromecast at my parent's place, it was very good. Tried an 8 GB blu-ray rip to see if it would be better (was for a film I owned on blu-ray anyway, but they don't have a blu-ray player). It was about equivalent.

[WrathOfHan]

17 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

I think the problem in home video is that DVD looks like shite on a big TV and BR is just horrible from the UX point of view. People dont want ads, they dont want menu after menu, forced firmware updates to play (solely because of DRM that doesn't work anyway), warnings and all the other junk they force on you. Its not 1986 any more. Many people also have crap internet so downloading is good, streaming is not.

A creative menu goes a long way and makes film viewing an experience.

[wildphantom]

3 hours ago, stuart360 said:

 

I actually paid to see The Revenant last year, twice, after watching the screener. I wasn't really bothered about the film beforehand but the film blew me away so i paid to see it. You would be surprised how often that happens with people who pirate stuff.

 

Fair point. Nice all the same that people who pay to see it actually see it first. That was what I was trying to say. 

We all remember the Hateful Eight debacle. 

[UTJeff]

A lot of piracy actually originates from within the industry.

[filmlover]

Skimming this thread since I was last here, a number of people have done a marvelous job demonstrating why I see most movies I see in theaters instead of at home or through illegal downloading (to support the industry). Well played.

[Daxtreme]

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

most movies

 

[ldb]

On 12/30/2016 at 6:33 PM, Mojoguy said:

 

[terrestrial]

Didn't read through all this, as I might get way too angry...

 

Are people aware about the big earners of a studio are being needed to co-finance in a way the small ones, middle ones, flops,... and paying majorly for the running costs of a studio in general - let them have the minimum needed for a studio ... for financing future projects, and - with a lot of luck - even in-house = cheaper than per bank loan?
Every argument about 'it's mostly hitting the big earners, they wont loose sleep over it...' is IMHO very short sighted at best. The big earners are often enough 'the only hope' for the continuing existence of a studio.

 

Plus:

it's logical that it's hitting those the most, as in generated the most interest in GA. Let's say an usually more expensive $100m dom BO gets pirated $50m worth, and a $20m dom BO gets pirated $10m = both get pirated 50%, but only one of those will probably appear on the the top-pirated list = as such to me 'pirated the most' chart is more or less worthless in viewing the damage per film - and studio and/or distributor.

 

Again: in my POV there is no excuse to be a thief, even if the legal version needs 10 years till it gets available, so what?

 

Why are the people today not able or willing to wait or simply to do without watching it (see not wanting to support / pay for a film based on e.g. quality, involved people, ...) and go to be criminals instead? 

[Lordmandeep]

1 hour ago, terrestrial said:

Didn't read through all this, as I might get way too angry...

 

Are people aware about the big earners of a studio are being needed to co-finance in a way the small ones, middle ones, flops,... and paying majorly for the running costs of a studio in general - let them have the minimum needed for a studio ... for financing future projects, and - with a lot of luck - even in-house = cheaper than per bank loan?
Every argument about 'it's mostly hitting the big earners, they wont loose sleep over it...' is IMHO very short sighted at best. The big earners are often enough 'the only hope' for the continuing existence of a studio.

 

Plus:

it's logical that it's hitting those the most, as in generated the most interest in GA. Let's say an usually more expensive $100m dom BO gets pirated $50m worth, and a $20m dom BO gets pirated $10m = both get pirated 50%, but only one of those will probably appear on the the top-pirated list = as such to me 'pirated the most' chart is more or less worthless in viewing the damage per film - and studio and/or distributor.

 

Again: in my POV there is no excuse to be a thief, even if the legal version needs 10 years till it gets available, so what?

 

Why are the people today not able or willing to wait or simply to do without watching it (see not wanting to support / pay for a film based on e.g. quality, involved people, ...) and go to be criminals instead? 

 

 

 

People will break the law if there is a benefit and the chances of being caught are next to zero.

[terrestrial]

5 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

People will break the law if there is a benefit and the chances of being caught are next to zero.

 

Why are you, who admits to being an active and actual thief, telling me this? To ... justify? Not successful. Have a word of what?

Argh, better don't answer that, I am already disgusted enough.

[GirafficPark]

There is a lot of righteousness here. Maybe before commenting people should check the T&Cs of all the media they own. Often lending is illegal, as is transferring to another device, public broadcasting (which is actually a horrible law, certainly here in the UK), transcoding etc. Most of that is illegal for many media. Fair use is often debatable.

 

Personally i see nothing more wrong with downloading an HD copy of Civil War a few months after cinema release, when i pay for cable thats showed it a few months further on, than lending a CD to someone, or ripping that CD to mp3 for my phone.

 

If in some way you have a license to view/play that media then using the media differently from the license agreement is still illegal, but at least you paid. Its different than downloading stuff when you never pay in any way. Even then though, if you never intended to pay in many way even if you couldn't pirate, then no one has lost anything.

[GirafficPark]

16 hours ago, Jason said:

 

Genuinely curious. How were you watching it on your TV? I presumed HDMI cable vs. Chromecast would look the same. Used Chromecast at my parent's place, it was very good. Tried an 8 GB blu-ray rip to see if it would be better (was for a film I owned on blu-ray anyway, but they don't have a blu-ray player). It was about equivalent.

Chromecast is awful, it has been for me anyway. Never impressed by the output quality, the need for a phone/tablet or god forbid Chrome Browser.

 

The only piracy I do these days if for things i either cant get any other way, or to get stuff a bit earlier. Both caould be easily fixed by the creators if they wanted to. The only piracy I dont really approve of is Screeners released before or during the cinema run, even then there is no conclusive proof they have an effect on box office. The Hateful Eight disappointed at the box office, but it was in the range of the Kill Bills, and didnt really have the appeal. If anything id say Tarantinos  previous 2 movies over performed.

Edited January 1, 2017 by GirafficPark

[robertman2]

Only time I pirate is when its something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, or the Zelda CD-i games, since there's zero chance of those being made available legally.

[terrestrial]

38 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

There is a lot of righteousness here. Maybe before commenting people should check the T&Cs of all the media they own. Often lending is illegal, as is transferring to another device, public broadcasting (which is actually a horrible law, certainly here in the UK), transcoding etc. Most of that is illegal for many media. Fair use is often debatable.

Personally i see nothing more wrong with downloading an HD copy of Civil War a few months after cinema release, when i pay for cable thats showed it a few months further on, than lending a CD to someone, or ripping that CD to mp3 for my phone.

If in some way you have a license to view/play that media then using the media differently from the license agreement is still illegal, but at least you paid. Its different than downloading stuff when you never pay in any way. Even then though, if you never intended to pay in many way even if you couldn't pirate, then no one has lost anything.

That is simple for me to answer: I only own and have used legal hard-copies aka DVDs and Blu-Rays. I do not rip...

 

I am not sure if you are aware what started this discussion, as in this time and resulted in the start of this thread:

a member here more or less bragged about doing the illegal download as the content was not worth it anyway (a WB film). Like it would be an impertinence to expect from him to pay for 'That'.

It was not to shorten a waiting time, nor about it not being affordable or...

It was in my POV that he can diss about it in the times it is fresh in the minds / actual in the discussions e.g. here without having to pay for it.

 

So if I am sure I wont like a film, then either I wont watch it, or, if I want to participate in a 'discussion', then I gain the insight into the film's details for the discussions and as such if I want to participate I pay for watching it. Someone who goes actively to download it for e.g. that, not having e.g. your kind of contract for soon in the future (still not happy about that, have to think about it a bit, I guess you view it as lending it from your provider out of the nearer future if that makes sense in translation) is a thief in every law book of every country on earth, now and in the past.

 

General speaking about the rest of your post:

I do not know enough about your details (see contract with the provider...), but to me it still looks at least questionable, see ripping the the lended (lent?) CD. 

If only as to further the illegal market, the  ~ shrug of the shoulders about a crime that seems to get a new normal, the getting used to it to a degree too few it seems see it any-more... I think it is at least a dangerous small ... ridge (?) you seem to walk on.

But you seem at least not to brag about it, be aware about certain limits, seek for possibilities to act within some for your specifics counting rules and possibilities.

Like maybe the difference between an maybe administrative offense and a crime like theft out of low moral motifs?

 

 

[EmpireCity]

If you pirate content and aren't in a 3rd world country, you are a lazy douchebag.

[GirafficPark]

Its actually illegal to lend a CD or movie at all in many regions, whether the lendee rips it or not. The license you buy allow YOU to use it, no one else.

 

The way i look at it is simple though, if you pirate movies you arent that interested in, ones you wouldnt pay for anyway, no one loses anything. Sometimes though that leads to you liking it enough to buy a real copy. I go to see or buy movies i want to see, anything else is seen eventually if there is mild interest, but the interest isnt enough to part with cash for. Movies and music have a unique position in many regions in that you cant return them if dissatisfied with them, the 'warranty' only applies to the media they are on, not the movie itself. Nothing else you buy has that limitation in its warranty or return policy.

 

[EmpireCity]

4 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

Its actually illegal to lend a CD or movie at all in many regions, whether the lendee rips it or not. The license you buy allow YOU to use it, no one else.

 

The way i look at it is simple though, if you pirate movies you arent that interested in, ones you wouldnt pay for anyway, no one loses anything. Sometimes though that leads to you liking it enough to buy a real copy. I go to see or buy movies i want to see, anything else is seen eventually if there is mild interest, but the interest isnt enough to part with cash for. Movies and music have a unique position in many regions in that you cant return them if dissatisfied with them, the 'warranty' only applies to the media they are on, not the movie itself. Nothing else you buy has that limitation in its warranty or return policy.

 

 

Sorry, no amount of flawed logic is going to change the fact you have made the decision to be a lazy douchebag.