Film Piracy (opinions and box office effect)

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, GirafficPark said:

Or worth his money more like. Digital media is NOT equivalent to physical goods, however much the industry protests that it is.

 

You're effectively valuing the efforts of thousands of people as worthless or near-worthless. 

[DAR]

7 minutes ago, stuart360 said:

 

Tele knows nothing about the piracy scene, as he's showing here. 2 people in this forum are explaining why its bullshit but we seem to be lying or something.

As i keep saying, its not a black and white subject like you are led to believe.

But again it does effect those people in the day to day jobs on a movie.  The lighting guys, the grips those people get hurt the most

[stuart360]

Just now, cannastop said:

You are full of shit.

 

How?

[That One Girl]

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by That One Guy

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, cannastop said:

You are full of shit.

But its absolutely 100% true. A movie is not a car.

[GirafficPark]

Just now, That One Guy said:

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.  You stealing a movie isn't making them lose money?

Not if he wouldnt have paid for it if he couldnt pirate it no.

[Plain Old Tele]

Moderation:

 

Directed as much at myself as anybody else, but please, let's keep this a civil discussion. 

[stuart360]

Just now, That One Guy said:

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.  You stealing a movie isn't making them lose money?

 

No.

Like i said earlier, i downloaded 'The Girl on a Train' last night, a film i wasn't bothered really about seeing, wouldn't of paid to see it, wouldn't of rented it, wouldn't of bought the Blu-Ray. i would of waited until it was on tv one late night.

So how is me downloading that film, effecting the industry?.

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, GirafficPark said:

But its absolutely 100% true. A movie is not a car.

 

Regardless of the physical vs virtual aspects, both a car and a movie are created through thousands of hours of labor (creative and otherwise). Why should a company effectively subsidize all those costs just so you can decide if you feel like paying for it?

 

Again, you're relying on all the legal consumers basically covering the costs of your actions. 

[Plain Old Tele]

2 minutes ago, stuart360 said:

 

No.

Like i said earlier, i downloaded 'The Girl on a Train' last night, a film i wasn't bothered really about seeing, wouldn't of paid to see it, wouldn't of rented it, wouldn't of bought the Blu-Ray. i would of waited until it was on tv one late night.

 

So why did you download it?

 

edit: to delve deeper into your choice -- it's technically not "free" on TV either. The network is paying to license the movie. Advertisers cover the cost of that for the network. Without enough eyeballs on it, advertisers will reduce their rates, and at some point it doesn't become cost-effective for the channel to air the movie. So even in this case your choice has ramifications. 

[elcaballero]

6 minutes ago, stuart360 said:

 

How?

You have enough interest in something to go find a torrent, wait for it to download and then watch it for 2 hours. 

 

As we were mentioning earlier with market forces, I believe there is a price point somewhere in there that you would be willing to pay to see a movie, if piracy wasn't an option.

Edited December 31, 2016 by elcaballero

[GirafficPark]

Just now, stuart360 said:

 

No.

Like i said earlier, i downloaded 'The Girl on a Train' last night, a film i wasn't bothered really about seeing, wouldn't of paid to see it, wouldn't of rented it, wouldn't of bought the Blu-Ray. i would of waited until it was on tv one late night.

So how is me downloading that film, effecting the industry?.

Same happened with Ghostbusters (2016) for me, except it was my housemate that downloaded it. He had NO intention of paying to see it, but was interested enough to pirate. If there was no piracy option he wouldn't have watched it, end of story. As it is, for some inexplicable reason) he found it funny and now might pay to see a second one (like thats going to be made...lol)..

[cannastop]

6 minutes ago, stuart360 said:

 

How?

If you choose to download it, you wanted to watch in it some way. If you couldn't pirate it, you might pay for it. It's not just about you. It's about millions of consumers.

[Plain Old Tele]

Since I'm at a restaurant right now, I wonder if there's any corollation between those who don't tip service people and those who pirate. 

[DAR]

 I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around the "well I wasn't interested in watching but I'll pirate it anyway" mentality.

 

I don't like coconut, that doesn't mean next time I go to the store I'm going to steal a Mounds bar

[Jason]

Okay, so I can imagine it'd be near-impossible to conclusively demonstrate a causal relationship between piracy and decreased revenue from any source (theatrical release, home video etc.). Not because such a relationship doesn't exist, but because there are multiple possible explanations, and an experiment can't be conducted to separate the effects.

 

But am I really supposed to believe that among the people I know who pirate up to several dozens of films a year (as well as a number of TV shows), they would not have watched ANY of them if there was no "free" option available?

[stuart360]

Just now, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

So why did you download it?

 

I thought the trailer looked interesting, but i could take the film or leave it.

This is what i'm talking about Tele. If piracy didn't exist, i would of just watched that film on tv one night. People watch 'free' stuff all the time, it doesn't mean the same people would still keep watching if they sudden'y had to start paying for it. You pay for what interests you, but if there is a piss easy and quick way of watchimg something that you could take or leave, you would probably end up watching it because of the ease.

 

I honestly don't understand why some of you find this concept so hard to grasp.

[DAR]

1 minute ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

Since I'm at a restaurant right now, I wonder if there's any corollation between those who don't tip service people and those who pirate. 

Early New Year's Eve specials?  

[GirafficPark]

2 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

Regardless of the physical vs virtual aspects, both a car and a movie are created through thousands of hours of labor (creative and otherwise). Why should a company effectively subsidize all those costs just so you can decide if you feel like paying for it?

 

Again, you're relying on all the legal consumers basically covering the costs of your actions. 

With reguard to the first line, yes thats exactly how consumerism works. I decided if I feel like paying or not for every single thing I ever owned or bought or didnt.

 

With regard to the second, no, im not, because either way I wouldn't be paying, the only difference therefore is that one way i see something, the other way i dont. there was no cost to the producer. That is not true of physical objects.

 

Please not that i do actually pay for these things, for me piracy is about when and how I get to see them, not if.

[GirafficPark]

4 minutes ago, cannastop said:

If you choose to download it, you wanted to watch in it some way. If you couldn't pirate it, you might pay for it. It's not just about you. It's about millions of consumers.

Research proves otherwise. Pirates spend the most. Filthy casuals who pirate likely would never pay. Thats certainly my experience of it as well.