Film Piracy (opinions and box office effect)

[Lordmandeep]

6 minutes ago, elcaballero said:

Ask artists that are trying get off the ground what they think about the new music industry. Very little money actually makes its way into their pockets.

 

 

People won't pay 15 dollars for a album if they can listen to it for free on youtube. 

 

Society has changed... 

[elcaballero]

1 minute ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

People won't pay 15 dollars for a album if they can listen to it for free on youtube. 

 

Society has changed... 

And that is bad for artists and creators. If you want new things, you have to find a way to pay for them, period. 

[Morieris]

26 minutes ago, John Marston said:

top ten pirated movies of 2016

 

 

Deadpool

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Captain America Civil War

Star Wars The Force Awakens

X-Men Apocalypse

Warcraft

Independence Day: Resurgence

Suicide Squad

Finding Dory

The Revenant

 

 

 

 

How many of these movies were available overseas before the US? I know for a fact Warcraft (Which I don't think would have done gangbusters stateside anyway, China "saved" it and it still wasn't a profit, right?) and Civil War were, and it didn't "hurt" the latter and that leak was in nearly perfect HD.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Morieris

[Lordmandeep]

4 minutes ago, elcaballero said:

And that is bad for artists and creators. If you want new things, you have to find a way to pay for them, period. 

 

The thing is everyone is connected to the internet 24/7.

 

The idea that one must own the music physically or even digitally is a bit outdated as it is so easily accessible for free. 

 

Hey you heard that new drake song?

 

Loads up youtube or Spotify or Soundcloud... 

 

 

 

About the most pirated movie being Superhero films, it makes sense males pirate the most.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[RobinHood26]

The music business is different, you could argue now, songs, albums, all that is simply marketing for " Performances/Concerts " not that its very profitable (But the EDM industry was built this way)  

 

That doesnt work for movies though. 

[elcaballero]

54 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

The thing is everyone is connected to the internet 24/7.

 

The idea that one must own the music physically or even digitally is a bit outdated as it is so easily accessible for free. 

 

Hey you heard that new drake song?

 

Loads up youtube or Spotify or Soundcloud... 

 

 

 

About the most pirated movie being Superhero films, it makes sense males pirate the most.

 

I'm not worried about someone like Drake. He has a label, he has a manager, he has the ability to tour and make money just off of being a celebrity.

 

I'm worried about the smaller musicians. I'll take one of my new favorite bands as an example: Starset. They don't get the automatic airplay that Drake does and they won't be selling out Wembley anytime soon. In fact, they'll be playing a free concert in my hometown pretty soon. 

 

If you go off of youtube views, their official youtube page has about 85 million views, which translates into about $37,000. Here's the thing: unofficial sources have almost 550 million views, and the band makes nothing off of these. So youtube has gotten them a grand total of $37,000 over three years. For a four-member band. Yikes.

 

So what do they have to do? Well, they have to tour. And to be able to tour, they have to get their name out there. This is how you end up playing a free concert (sponsored by a local radio station) to a few hundred people. I don't know how much they're paid for the gig, but I can't imagine it's a lot. These guys aren't swimming in money; they are just trying to make it and could use any financial support they can get. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by elcaballero

[AndyLL]

23 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

The thing is everyone is connected to the internet 24/7.

 

The idea that one must own the music physically or even digitally is a bit outdated as it is so easily accessible for free. 

 

Hey you heard that new drake song?

 

Loads up youtube or Spotify or Soundcloud... 

 

 

 

The idea that 'easily accessible' is a justification or excuse for piracy is absurd.

 

The pirates just keep moving the goalposts.

 

A decade ago the excuse from music pirates was:  

 

"Why should I have to pay $15 for a whole CD when all I want is one song.  If the music industry would just get with the times and make individual songs available cheaply we'd quit stealing music and play for what we listen too"

 

And of course now there are a million legal options to cheaply get/listen to music so  the pirates now come up with other excuses...

 

"a free version is almost always uploaded to youtube so I might as well go steal the entire album off of a torrent site."

 

In most countries there are a million ways to watch recent movies cheaply.  It is not unreasonable to pay $3-5 at redbox, amazon, itunes or other sites to watch recent movies.

 

If that's too much than wait for it to hit the premium channels or netflix.

 

Can't afford that?  Wait a year and it'll be on free TV.

 

There is no excuse for stealing from the content creators.

 

 

 

[elcaballero]

Double post

Edited December 30, 2016 by elcaballero

[Plain Old Tele]

1 hour ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Spotify though is free and yet artists make money. Isn't that possiblle? I mean I think the ideal thing would be to have a rental for movies that are on theaters or for generally new movies and the other ones to be free. I mean If piracy exists in such a larrge scale why not legalize it and try make a profit out of it. That's what happened in music industry and it worked perfectly!

 

Most musicans make pennies in the current system. The ones who're able to survive either do so through touring or are at the very top of the system.

 

What also complicates things is that it costs a good deal more to make a movie than an album. Ironically, by going the route of making all non-recent movies free to stream, you're directly hurting the actual content creators as opposed to the studios, since most of the way they earn a living between jobs (and get healthcare, etc) is through residuals from previous work. I'm not saying the current way is literally the only way to do things, but it's important to know who gets affected and how. 

[LateReg]

I appreciate this discussion very much, especially because I don't think there's anything black and white about it. Contrary to what @That One Guy said in a different thread, I think the ONLY way to be a movie buff is to pirate movies. I've engaged in discussions with people where they've detailed a long history of rare films that could only be seen through bootlegs. Distribution of foreign and indie and art films is a major problem that needs to be resolved. Given the choice between not seeing something and seeing something is a no-brainer. Sometimes there's no other choice but to find a way to trade. And it's important to have passion, to search high and low for a movie.

 

That said, I don't believe in watching anything on a cam-rip as artistic integrity must be preserved. I don't believe in pirating any movies that are down the street at your local multiplex or even an hour away. But I absolutely will not wait three to six to sometimes nine months for a foreign film to get home video treatment in the United States. For example, Toni Erdmann. There's no way in hell this movie is coming near me, and I've been waiting for it since its Cannes premiere. I'm going to watch it any way I can the moment I can. And then when it comes out on Blu-ray, I'm going to buy it. That's why I feel perfectly fine with my own piracy.

 

I go to the theater whenever possible, and I own a region free Blu-ray player and upwards of 6000 movies. Lately, as with The Handmaiden, some companies are not putting movies on Blu-ray, but only DVD. If the movie is released on Blu-ray in another country, I will buy that. But if it is only released on DVD here, I will no longer buy it because I think that company is doing cinephiles a great disservice, essentially dumbing down the medium to cut their costs. A movie as beautiful and acclaimed as The Handmaiden...not coming out on Blu-ray in the US? The company putting that out deserves to be punished, in my opinion. The problem is that the filmmakers are also being punished if I don't buy the disc. But by not buying it (an inferior DVD) I would hope that I send a message of my own. In the case of The Handmaiden, I will buy the Korean CJ Entertainment digipak Blu-ray. But in the case of something like The Americans, which FX only puts out on DVD since the second season, I refuse to buy it in hopes of a Blu-ray boxset once the show concludes. (The first season has a Blu-ray, which I own, but the second season is only on DVD, and it looked horrid in comparison to the first season as well as many other dvds on the market.)

 

So yeah, I think piracy is a vital part of cinema knowledge since distribution is such a problem unless you live in New York or LA. But I also feel I'm in the clear from any immorality or illegality because I only pirate to see something that otherwise can't be seen, and then buy the physical copy when it is finally made available in the proper format. I fully understand that most people don't do it this way, but I'd still rather that others sought out everything they can - however they can - rather than remain ignorant.

[franfar]

I think the best way for pirating to decrease, is if the studios/content creators came together, and made their libraries available on at least one streaming service. Similar to Hulu, but much better. Instead of a monthly fee, make each individual film $3-6. 

 

Independent film creators can create their own service as well (which is probably a good way to build reputation), and can get a higher cut than if they went through a big studio. 

 

I think it can be similar to how the App Store/Google Play works. Everyone has opportunity, and you pay a small tax to get into the store.

 

Simultaneously, if that service works out well, they can crack down hard on the illegal distributors, like the MPAA has already been doing: https://torrentfreak.com/2016-was-the-year-torrent-giants-fell-161228/

 

I'm sure this is imperfect, but I think this is the best way to overcome the hurdle of inconvenience. One streaming app. 

[Lordmandeep]

50 minutes ago, AndyLL said:

 

The idea that 'easily accessible' is a justification or excuse for piracy is absurd.

 

The pirates just keep moving the goalposts.

 

A decade ago the excuse from music pirates was:  

 

"Why should I have to pay $15 for a whole CD when all I want is one song.  If the music industry would just get with the times and make individual songs available cheaply we'd quit stealing music and play for what we listen too"

 

And of course now there are a million legal options to cheaply get/listen to music so  the pirates now come up with other excuses...

 

"a free version is almost always uploaded to youtube so I might as well go steal the entire album off of a torrent site."

 

In most countries there are a million ways to watch recent movies cheaply.  It is not unreasonable to pay $3-5 at redbox, amazon, itunes or other sites to watch recent movies.

 

If that's too much than wait for it to hit the premium channels or netflix.

 

Can't afford that?  Wait a year and it'll be on free TV.

 

There is no excuse for stealing from the content creators.

 

 

 

There is no goal posts or moral argument in most people mind though...I think that is what you and Tele don't understand..

 

The easily accessible part for free is all that matters to people and the industry has to respond to that or they will become' old man yelling at cloud.'

 

Btw I was referring to how people can easily acess music for free now...no one really pirates music much anymore.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[franfar]

1 hour ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Spotify though is free and yet artists make money. Isn't that possiblle? I mean I think the ideal thing would be to have a rental for movies that are on theaters or for generally new movies and the other ones to be free. I mean If piracy exists in such a larrge scale why not legalize it and try make a profit out of it. That's what happened in music industry and it worked perfectly!

Spotify Premium has a cost though. It still doesn't earn profit. 

[Hatebox]

The music industry would kill to make the kind of money movies are still making, all things considered. An entire generation has already grown up not expecting to pay for songs at all, and who can blame them?

[ban1o]

I don't care about it for big films like Star Wars but for small films I'm really against. 

[redfirebird2008]

1 hour ago, fracfar said:

I think the best way for pirating to decrease, is if the studios/content creators came together, and made their libraries available on at least one streaming service. Similar to Hulu, but much better. Instead of a monthly fee, make each individual film $3-6. 

 

 

This is already the case with Apple's movie store, Google's movie store, Amazon's movie store, etc.

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

This is already the case with Apple's movie store, Google's movie store, Amazon's movie store, etc.

The future is here, and no one cares.

[Nova]

1 hour ago, ban1o said:

I don't care about it for big films like Star Wars but for small films I'm really against. 

It's funny you mentioned that cause usually the most pirated films are the ones that make the most money. Forbes released a list of the top 10 pirated movies of 2016 and they were 1) Deadpool 2) BvS 3) Civil War 4) Star Wars TFA 5) X-men 6) Warcraft 7) Independence Day 8) Suicide Squad 9) Finding Dory 10) The Revenant 

 

All of them are blockbuster type films. It makes you wonder how much each of these films would have made had they not have been pirated. Would Deadpool get to $400M? Would TFA have made it to $1B? For me one of my biggest issues with pirating films is this. By pirating a film (especially when it's in theaters) you're preventing it from reaching its full box office potential which has ramifications on what type of films get released in the future. 

[redfirebird2008]

24 minutes ago, cannastop said:

The future is here, and no one cares.

 

The concept is fine with Apple or Amazon's stores, but the pricing is not. It costs them pennies to host those files and they are charging damn near the same thing you pay in a movie theater with a giant screen and proper surround sound. That's not right. The pricing should be $2 for legacy titles and $3 for new releases. Instead it's $6 for new ones, which is nuts. Also think it's pretty effed up Apple only gives you 24 hours to watch the rental.

Edited December 30, 2016 by redfirebird2008

[Mojoguy]

Deadpool is actually selling great on video, second biggest move of the year according to The Numbers...

http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/packaged-media-sales/2016