Film Piracy (opinions and box office effect)

[cannastop]

Ever notice that whenever piracy is mentioned, someone always says "Oh yeah? Well, SLAVERY!"

 

Maybe piracy isn't as defensible as you think.

[RandomCat]

Just now, Jay Hollywood said:

 

Thats the same assumption though. He took the effort to pirate it. Meaning if he had HBO go, he would have just watched it on there, or netflix or amazon. But he doesn't. So you can argue both ways. 

 

 

Not to mention, its because it EXISTS. If you couldn't pirate, like it was Legit IMPOSSIBLE. would Lord have paid to see it? Knowing he couldn't pirate it ever?

 

 

I'd guess he wouldn't have. But guessing by his personality he'd have waited for digital streaming through Netflix where it isn't directly paid for by him.

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

I used to pirate stuff as a broke college kid, but now I never do. I think, like anything, there are some instances where it isn't bad. And I certainly think there is a viewpoint to see it as rational. But I don't believe it is the morally right thing to do, and I have the means to go the theater, rent, pay for streaming/cable/premium channels, buy Blu-Rays/DVDs on my own.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Jayhawk

[titanic2187]

piracy is surely affecting the box office in the ways that it make repeat viewing in cinema become unnecessary....

and i think piracy issue is particularly strong at asia countries, especially china 

[That One Girl]

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by That One Guy

[RobinHood26]

Just now, RandomJC said:

 

I'd guess he wouldn't have. But guessing by his personality he'd have waited for digital streaming through Netflix where it isn't directly paid for by him.

 

 

So, thats fine, that is logged, that somehow someway trikles down to studio/Netflix who paid for it and so on.

 

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

 

As I'm saying, this is a rough estimate.  I'm not saying that's how much, but roughly that much.  If I wanted to, I'd take precious time out of my life and calculate market shares, average foreign ticket price, DVD sales, people who wouldn't have seen it in the first place, etc., but I'm not gonna do that.  Someone else can if they want to .

 

...My point is that you can't just go X Downloads=X Dollars. even calling it rough is incredibly naïve and it's nearly impossible to quantify how much was lost, because you can't tell the individual motive of the person who downloaded what.

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

So, thats fine, that is logged, that somehow someway trikles down to studio/Netflix who paid for it and so on.

 

 

I think it's the point where I reiterate I do think Lordmandeep is in the wrong, and his actions are criminal. But I also say that he'd probably never have paid theater ticket price for the movies either.

[Daxtreme]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

So, I did some research, and the most pirated film released in 2015 was Furious 7 (not counting Interstellar as #1 since that was a 2014 release) at 44,700,000 downloads.  The average ticket price in 2015 was $8.43.  So Furious 7 lost roughly $376,821,000 due to piracy (my math might be off but idk).  Please tell me more about how piracy isn't a problem?  Granted, Furious 7 did make a lot of money, but let that sink in for a second...376M lost due to piracy.

 

Mad Max: Fury Road was downloaded 36.4M times.  That's 306M lost due to piracy.  I don't have exact numbers yet, but Deadpool is apparently the most pirated movie of 2016. 

 

That's assuming lots of things though.

 

First, many of those who downloaded the movie would never have paid for it in the first place. That's the whole point of piracy. Not that it's right, just saying -- You can't lose money that you would never get.

 

Second, many of those who downloaded the movie might have watched the movie in a dollar theater instead, or went to a friend's house to watch it, or have it lent to them by a friend. So the studio would receive between $1 and $0 from those people. Again, that's the kind of thing someone who pirates movies will do, since they're not inclined to pay for movies to begin with.

 

Third, many of those who downloaded the movie might not watch it in a theater to begin with, so this $8.43 ticket price average really doesn't mean anything. Like I said above, they would rent it, buy it used/off-hand, etc., which means the studio definitely doesn't pocket $8.74 per person.

 

Now, consider this:

 

What if many of those who downloaded the movie thought it was awesome, and recommended it to someone who had no interest in the movie whatsoever, but suddenly does? And that person has no idea how piracy works? Then that person buys the movie, or rents it, or goes to the theater to watch it. That's a sale you wouldn't have gotten without piracy.

 

I won't pull out random numbers because that's not the point of this post, but the fact is that the above scenario can and will happen. I know because I've seen it happen, I know it's anecdotal but I've seen it happen a lot, in fact. The person who pirates doesn't suddenly think "I have to make sure this studio makes no money", what they think instead is "oh, that movie sucked" or "oh yeah, that movie was great". Like you. It's just that they didn't pay for it. But obviously they don't care about that, and doesn't mean they suddenly won't tell anyone about it!

 

I feel like I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, and I mean I shouldn't, because piracy is wrong, but it's just that when I see hyperbolic posts like these I am kinda forced to rectify the situation. Your numbers are wrong, basically, and extrapolated from data that simply doesn't work because of what defines piracy. 1 pirated movie doesn't equal 1 lost sale because movie pirates usually don't pay for them anyway. Hell, it can balance itself with more sales, like with my Game of Thrones example in my previous post.

 

Can you, without the shadow of a doubt, say, with 100% certainty, that if piracy didn't exist, Game of Thrones would be as popular as it is right now? 

 

If I had to put money on it... I would say that if piracy didn't exist, at all, Game of Thrones wouldn't be as popular as it is right now, and thus, wouldn't be making that much money. I'd go with 2 to 1 odds any day of the year on this.

 

Sadly, it can't ever be proven.

 

All I'm saying is, it's more of a grey area than you think. Doesn't make it right, but it's not clear-cut either.

[That One Girl]

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by That One Guy

[That One Girl]

.

Edited June 8, 2022 by That One Guy

[DAR]

I said earlier that it would be hypocritical for me to pooh pooh it when I've done it in the past.  But I don't do it anymore.  I'll eventually see what I want to see.

 

However I'm not thinking of the studios and big names that make movies but the behind the scenes people.  Or a filmmaker like @Jay Hollywoodwho's trying to get known.  It affects them more

Edited December 30, 2016 by DAR

[WrathOfHan]

Occasionally I'll stream something, but I try to avoid it, especially since the quality sucks a lot of the time.

[elcaballero]

I understand not being able to afford to see a lot of movies. Frankly, this is the reason I can't see a lot of what I want to see myself.

 

With that said, I think that there are always cheap options to see things. For starters, I would recommend looking for a second-run/dollar theater near you. For me personally, they are a great way to catch up on movies that I was hesitant to spend a lot of money on or just missed the first time completely. Also, ask about student/military discounts or rewards programs at your local theater, as sometimes they're not advertised.

 

As far as streaming goes, I don't consider $3 for a rental on Google Play or Amazon to be a raw deal, especially for the convenience factor. A Redbox is also an option if that doesn't work for you, and if that is still too much, you can always go to your local library, as they probably have a better selection, including TV shows. I'm shocked that more people don't do this, especially college students who are probably there a lot anyway.

Edited December 30, 2016 by elcaballero

[RobinHood26]

Just now, DAR said:

I said earlier that it would be hypocritical for me to pooh pooh it when I've done it in the past.

 

However I'm not thinking of the studios and big names that make movies but the behind the scenes people.  Or a filmmaker like @Jay Hollywoodwho's trying to get known.

 

Thank you!

 

Yeah I want there to be an industry in 20 years!!! This is how I plan on raising my family someday! This is why I get mad at my friends.

 

Its not even about becoming a director its about those 1,000's of people that make movies happen. Pirating hurts the Grips, Electrics, Assistants, Chef's, the fucking valet guy at CBS even. I live in a city where 1/3rd the houses are paid for with YOUR Money for enjoying Movies/TV. Shit my rent (and my roommates) paid for, Tele pays for a house, raises a child, helps support a family because there IS an industry.

 

 

If there isn't enough jobs, then you cant make movies because you cant support enough professionals to make the industry run. 

[rukaio101]

17 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

The problem is, Its not getting smaller. Its becoming the norm. Older people don't Pirate. When the next generation is my age, why would anyone pay anything to see something if everyone knows how to do it? 

 

Honestly, I've said it before, but I think the reason the majority of people pirate is not they don't want to want to pay money but because piracy offers an easy and convenient way of accessing and watching whatever movie they want wherever they want with little fuss. (Not saying that necessarily makes it excusable, of course). If studios provided a good enough alternative for a fair price, I'd wager most people would go for it. There's a reason Netflix caught on so well. 

 

Sure there are some people who'd pirate regardless, but there always assholes like that in every generation. Not much you can do about it.

[redfirebird2008]

I do think the movie industry needs to adapt. I remember the days of $2-3 rentals at the movie store. Now it's $5-6 to rent them from iTunes. That doesn't seem like just inflation at play. And in fact their cost of providing a digital stream of the movie is a lot lower than it would be to provide physical rental with an actual store housing the movies.

[RobinHood26]

6 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

Honestly, I've said it before, but I think the reason the majority of people pirate is not they don't want to want to pay money but because piracy offers an easy and convenient way of accessing and watching whatever movie they want wherever they want with little fuss. (Not saying that necessarily makes it excusable, of course). If studios provided a good enough alternative for a fair price, I'd wager most people would go for it. There's a reason Netflix caught on so well. 

 

Sure there are some people who'd pirate regardless, but there always assholes like that in every generation. Not much you can do about it.

 

What this reply has anything to do with what I said Im not sure. I feel like my reply you're replying too could be used again here haha. 

 

Of course its about access,  duh its a generation thing mostly. My roommate pirated 3 movies last week because HE WANTED To watch them and they weren't on Netflix. My Dad, your dad probably, My boss, my Mom, My little sister, My Aunt and so on all would have sought it out a different way, But HE KNOWS how to pirate, so why pay? He works in the industry even. 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Jay Hollywood

[RobinHood26]

8 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

I do think the movie industry needs to adapt. I remember the days of $2-3 rentals at the movie store. Now it's $5-6 to rent them from iTunes. That doesn't seem like just inflation at play. And in fact their cost of providing a digital stream of the movie is a lot lower than it would be to provide physical rental with an actual store housing the movies.

 

This is a big thing too. Studios fucked up. First you're right, rentals should be 2-3 not 5-6. 

 

2nd they don't make SD tv's anymore. Yet people still buy DVDS 2x more than Blu-ray and they have no fucking idea about the difference. People have 70 inch TVs and buy Dvds still. No one to blame but them. 

 

 

I also think they need to swap it. Blu-ray/DVD then weeks later Digital Download/Streaming. 

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

This is a big thing too. Studios fucked up. First you're right, rentals should be 2-3 not 5-6. 

 

2nd they don't make SD tv's anymore. Yet people still buy DVDS 2x more than Blu-ray and they have no fucking idea about the difference. People have 70 inch TVs and buy Dvds still. No one to blame but them. 

 

 

I also think they need to swap it. Blu-ray/DVD then weeks later Digital Download/Streaming. 

 

At $6 it feels like a ripoff even for a good movie. I rented Hell or High Water the other day at that price. Great movie. But I'm probably going to see Fences next Tuesday in a movie theater for less than $6 due to the Discount Tuesday price. Now on what planet is $6 for a home video rental a reasonable price, especially when their cost to deliver it digitally is next to nothing? They need to come up with a better system.