Illegal Movie Downloads

[Guest]

Maybe I can make a low budget indie comedy about two filmmakers who try to get bootleggers to take their movie but they keep getting rejected. Instead the bootleggers show up at Sundance and cut deals with producers to bootleg their movies so that at least they get some form of distribution.

 

I'll simply call it: "Bootlegged: A Comedy About Film Piracy."

 

Does any one know if Pauly Shore would be available for this, who's his agent?

 

R,

[Scott Fritzshall]

Like it or not, this sort of thing is here to stay. It's not the death of this or any industry, but it certainly does change the dynamics of what we do and how we go about it. What's really at its root is mostly just convenience- I could put on my shoes, drive to the store, pick up this DVD, pay for it, and drive back home, or I could just click this button and get it after waiting a few hours. As was mentioned, this really became popular for music, and it became the driving force behind everything that has changed in music distribution in the last 10 years. Napster was the public's introduction to the term 'mp3,' and the idea that you could move your music around without needing the CD it came on- it suddenly afforded you a lot more freedom. File sharing was probably the backbone of the popularity of mp3 players. And plus, especially for music, it was really convenient- download sizes were small, and you could find anything you wanted, including out-of-print and rare, hard to find recordings. An elderly relative of mine had his grandkids use Napster to find him a recording of some old folk singer that he hadn't heard in 60 years! If you heard a song that you liked on the radio, or anywhere for that matter, you could find it and just have it with the push of a button. It was a complete change in the way that people thought about music, and it became wildly successful because people liked it a whole lot.

 

That's when the industry said "how can we compete with free- it's impossible!" But the last few years have shown that it's far from impossible to compete with free. If you really look at what people like about file sharing, free is just the icing on the cake. The thing that people like about it is the convenience and ease of use. File sharing is easy, but as has been noted, the quality of what you're getting can be dubious, and there's really no way of knowing what you get before you get it. There is the specter of illegality which makes people uncomfortable, the possibility that you could download a virus, and for less computer-savvy people it involves installing programs they've never heard of before and terminology they don't understand. Sometimes downloading can actually be a pain- when you want something that's rare and only shared by a few people, and they keep logging off before you can download it, it becomes frustrating. Then you've got something like iTunes that gives you nearly all of the convenience, packaged up in a friendly user interface, totally legal. iTunes, I think, demonstrates pretty clearly that you can compete with free if you understand what really motivates people. The film industry is lagging behind the music industry in making the transition, but it's going to happen, and I really don't think it has to be as painful as some people think.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Does any one know if Pauly Shore would be available for this...

 

Of course he is! :lol:

[Guest]

Of course he is! :lol:

 

Ok then I'm putting the crew together, can you be gaffer on this Chad?

 

R,

[Chad Stockfleth]

No way, I want to ACT!

[Guest]

No way, I want to ACT!

 

Not another gaffer who wants to be an actor, I had too many of those on my last shoot. The gaffer kept sticking his head into the frame while the camera was rolling and speaking lines from Hamlet.

 

R,

[Joe Giambrone]

Might as well chime in...

 

"Most downloads are of pretty questionable quality. You have to provide a higher quality version then they would get, at a price that makes it competitive."

 

Well there's that.

 

Most movies are overpriced, many outrageously so. I'd rather rent it for 99 cents than give some corporation $25. And I do. I have never bought an overpriced DVD, and probably never will.

 

As for piracy -- that's not your demographic. Those people wouldn't have bought it anyway. I wouldn't lose sleep over people watching your movie for free. They may recommend it to 10 people, half of whom will rent it on their own, etc.

 

I recently saw a decent panel discussion about the future of downloading and why hollywood has failed so far. They are still trying to rip off the viewers by overpricing.

 

According to their own numbers, a viewer watching their show, backed by tv ads, is worth x amount of money (62 cents was the example cited).

 

But, for the same content to be downloaded on ITunes today, they are trying to get $1.99.

 

Obviously a rip off. Why isn't it 62 cents? That's what they made by airing it in the first place. Do you see how the argument goes?

 

If the choice is FREE, or paying an INFLATED PRICE, a lot of people are going to choose free, even though it's illegal. Why should they voluntarily be ripped off? Better to rip off the rippers.

 

If the choice is FREE or a FAIR PRICE, many more people will choose the fair price in order to avoid the legal risk.

 

By attempting to gouge fans, studios have actually encouraged illegal downloading.

 

I avoid those piracy sites altogether, as 'they' can trace your IP back to you and take your property and assets via court. But, there are ways around that which others pursue. So, it's not going away any time soon.

[Guest]

I avoid those piracy sites altogether, as 'they' can trace your IP back to you and take your property and assets via court. But, there are ways around that which others pursue. So, it's not going away any time soon.

 

Do you know of an example of where this has happened?

 

Well this past week I have been pushed into this seedy underworld of dirt bags and thieves.

 

What amazes me is the number of companies like Apple that actually advertise on these torrent sites!!

 

Then there is the fact that 90% of them use a .com. .net. or .org, extension. The US gov't can order Network Solutions to pull the plug on these sites if they wanted to. They recently did it to a site based in the UK that used a .com to sell trips to Cuba. Even though it wasn't Americans that where going on these trips!

 

Also, any hint of child porn on any of these sites and the authorities can and WILL track down the site owners, international borders be dammed in a case like that. So they can get to these guys, but right now they just don't want to.

 

I have seen recent Hollywood releases on-line with 20 or more links to the source video. Megavideo and Super Nova Tube host hundreds of copyrighted movies and play them live! No need to download.

 

This type of thing is going to hint people 10 times harder than the studios. The reason is that the value of direct to DVD titles will drop like a stone the minute it hits the video store shelves. Where as a big movie has at least made some money in the theaters.

 

It really is just awful.

 

R,

[Chad Stockfleth]

With regards to television programming, I think the joint venture that created hulu.com is on the right path. They realize people are going to get it regardless, so they make it available themselves where they can still create some ad revenue.

 

There's actually a really interesting article in Wired this month that chronicles its creation and philosophy.

[Tom Lowe]

If the studios want to stop piracy, it's very simple. Offer high-quality, super-fast downloads of movies legally for 5 bucks. Done deal.

 

But unfortunately, the studios would rather rake customers over the coals for an additional $27 for a Bluray, after most of them already paid $10 - $20 to see it at the theater.

 

I have no sympathy for the studios, mainly because they are stupid, clueless and greedy. The record industry is the same way. Instead of adapting to new technology, their answer is to drag college kids and soccer moms into court and ruin their lives.

[K Borowski]

If the studios want to stop piracy, it's very simple. Offer high-quality, super-fast downloads of movies legally for 5 bucks. Done deal.

 

Not quite. That means they'd need to sell 5x as many to get the same amount of money.

 

Remember, VHS was $29.95/copy when it first came out.

 

 

The lack of understanding of simple business on this site is staggering. You people all work in the industry, right? Chad? How do you actually feed yourselves with ideas like these? That Starbucks job on the side in addition to your "real" job? :ph34r:

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Personally, and this is just my notion is that lowering the price of a DVD does help. I NEVER buy new DVDs because they are generally too expensive ($22.99 for The Dark Knight in Widescreen!?). But, whenever I go into FYE I always head to the used sections because the prices are, I feel, more reasonable. I'll grab 4 DVDs for $40 as opposed to just one for lets say $20. So I think mitigating the cost of the New DVD will help.

 

The other issue is that purchasing a DVD regardless of cost takes effort, whereas a download takes none. The solution to this would seem to be purchasing a digital copy of the film from one of the myriad sites offering it legitimately. However, here, I think the issue is that many people don't want to watch a film on their computer screen. Why would I, as an adult with a credit card, want to download ice age for my kids to sit and watch on the computer? I'd much rather, probably want to have them in the family room watching it on my kick a$$ plasma tv with 7.1 dolby audio (this is my hypothetical so if I have kids I also have a great home theater).

 

The problem with this is that many people (myself included) havn't got a clue how to pip from the iMac sitting in wherever, over to my TV in another room. So again, why would I want to bother? (I'm speaking here of consumers, not pirates who are more tech savvy and probably more likely to sit in front of their computer and watch a film). So I think there needs to be some other way of doing this. Comcast, for all their evil, has a good system with OnDemand, wherein you can watch programs for free often, or purchase a rental without leaving your home. The problem is, people like to own things, me thinks, to go back to it. Perhaps some new type of box where when we can buy a film off of OnDemand and store it forever, as though we own it. Or, store it without being able to access it ourselves and they then send us a real DVD of it (integrate with some fedex tracking and once the DVD arrives, it clears out of your cable box's hard drive-- again just my idea).

 

But, if you really want to compete with free, you need to give the consumers the same product at a better price or with better quality. Well you can't compete with free on price-- but you can give things away for free online, with higher quality. But how to make money off of this? I think the answer to this question is the current Hulu model, wherein you're able to watch what you want for free and it is then supported, like broadcast TV, by commercials. Sure, I have to waste 15-30 seconds (Hulu's average commercial) every few minutes for a TV show or a movie, but I think this could work, if we get it onto actual TVs (somehow) because it's easier than downloading a torrent, safer, a known quality, and not a major change in consumer behavior from what we currently have. I watch The Simpsons at night and I'm used to commercial breaks already, so why would I, as a consumer, care for a 30 second break (again Hulu's average) when watching, let's say Beyond Thunderdome on my TV, streaming from Hulu, in 720p (assuming broadband which you'd need anyway to really pirate) for free whenever I want? Aye, there's the real rub of piracy. Me thinks it's not a question of cost, nor a question of true quality but one of convenience and impatience. If it's a rainy day outside, or a rainy week, and I'm here with naught but the DVD collections I've watched a million times, netflix rentals take too long, I am not going to trudge down to FYE, and nothing good is on cable. Well, I've a few hours to kill let me just download Star Trek TNG Q Collection to waste away the rest of the day! (note: I do not and will not download films illegally, ever. The quality is too low for my liking and I prefer watching relaxed with surround sound!)

 

My 2 cents on the whole matter.

[Hal Smith]

..........What amazes me is the number of companies like Apple that actually advertise on these torrent sites!!............

 

Richard,

 

Talk to an attorney about the viability of a suit where you go after the advertisers on the theory that they are co-conspirators in facilitating piracy when they advertise on piracy sites. You should have standing in court with respect to such a suit since it is your copywritten property that is being stolen and that theft is being supported in part by Apple, et.al.

 

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not an attorney but I do have a fair sense of the law...usually.

[Russell Scott]

Not quite. That means they'd need to sell 5x as many to get the same amount of money.

 

Remember, VHS was $29.95/copy when it first came out.

 

The lack of understanding of simple business on this site is staggering. You people all work in the industry, right? Chad? How do you actually feed yourselves with ideas like these? That Starbucks job on the side in addition to your "real" job? :ph34r:

 

actually that's not true either... :P

 

for one thing your expenses are greatly lowered, your middleman is removed and in some countries taxes are less.

[Rhys Cooper]

I disagree with what many of you are saying about it being 'stealing' and morally wrong. Theft means that you are taking SOMETHING away from someone. Yes, copying a movie can be stealing, but only if the person was going to pay for it in the first place.

 

Those people wouldn't have bought it anyway. I wouldn't lose sleep over people watching your movie for free. They may recommend it to 10 people, half of whom will rent it on their own, etc.

 

That is exactly right. The people who are downloading films and music are often people who don't have the money to blow on these products, and would have NEVER paid for it otherwise. How many teens do you know that have 3000+ songs in iTunes? Do you seriously think that teens could afford to pay for all of that (equating to over $3000)? Many users are downloading the products to test their quality, see what they like and whether or not they think it is really worth paying for the physical product. Most of these people would have bought a few of the albums in their library.

 

Many of these users are getting these products so they can see if they like it first. Yes, the rental companies are losing money, but it is also because it is overpriced for the average consumer. Many users are not going to pay $5 to watch a movie once before they have to return it. It is costing too much in terms of effort and price. Many feel they are obeying morals and social values more-so, but in the end it is still costing too much.

 

I think we are all forgetting a major thing right here - people eventually want a physical copy that is easy to carry around. People want the physical product because they feel like they are actually receiving the work (including the box art, pamphlets, posters, cd art, etc), often with additional features and such that they wouldn't get from downloading. People like to have something they can carry around easily to a friends place and such so that it can be exposed to them, as well. No one wants to pay for something they cant physically feel exists. People don't get excited from soft copies.

 

Cinemas are still in business today because people like how epic it feels, and the fact that they are going out to see a film. Not an aweful lot of people invite someone over just to watch a film anymore. Home cinemas may be more likely to damage the industry. Look at the Dark Night for example, that made almost a billion in revenue because people went to the cinemas. We should be making cinemas more exciting and worthwhile for the costumers, so they are more likely to pay for this legitimate business. Cinemas need to compete against home cinemas in a way that will never be achievable at home.

 

Ultimately you are getting more exposure, more people are admiring your work, it is being talked about more often and there is more chance people are going to buy it. More people (including those who have not paid for it) are watching and appreciating your work. However, if you have not made a good film it is doubtful that they would be recommending it to their friends. This means you are going to have to work harder on your next project, which is exactly what your audience wants! You have to try and make films people are going to want to watch more then once.

 

If you make a good film, you are going to be supported through this system. If you make a terrible film, no one is going to pay for it. This is the way that it should work, to keep us on our toes and to keep us working hard. It also keeps competitions levels up.

 

I don't feel this system will damage the industry at all. It is just getting people to work harder at their jobs (filmmakers, technology, cinemas, marketing, advertising, etc).

Edited July 8, 2009 by Rhys Cooper

[Phil Rhodes]

If the studios want to stop piracy, it's very simple. Offer high-quality, super-fast downloads of movies legally for 5 bucks. Done deal.

 

Precisely. Oh, and just to preempt the inevitable, that's $5, not £5, and yes, we can tell the difference and we will notice and doing that does just encourage people to take the alternative route to paying $0, which really, actually is £0. I have absolutely no problem with people pirating Adobe software on the basis that, for most of the 90s and early part of this century, they charged double in the UK.

 

But on a more serious note, you'd have thought that with near zero distribution costs, zero manufacturing costs, zero staffing and property costs for the retail outlets, this sort of thing ought to be doable, with the related advantage that you can have practically your entire back-catalogue available for a negligible cost in server space. I think the film industry will be a laughing stock at some undetermined future date, on the basis of their complete inability to recognise and serve this massive market.

 

I have no sympathy for the studios, mainly because they are stupid, clueless and greedy.

 

It doesn't help their case, certainly. What also doesn't help their case is their forcing upon us, going by the repertoire of my local multiplex, of the absolute worst dross in the world. We're in a situation where there's some unpleasant, greedy, and somewhat ill-informed thugs who like to persecute the utterly helpless are trying to force drivel upon us. The fact of what I perceive to be a fairly small amount of loss to piracy is not really that persuasive under those circumstances.

 

P

[Freya Black]

How to get people to buy your dvd instead of downloading it:

 

Add Value:

 

DVD special features: Directors commentary, BTS documentary, Music video, deleted scenes, Interviews etc

5.1 Soundtrack

High Definition version (blue ray etc)

Box set

Printed booklet

Nice packaging

 

 

Make the film in a non english language:

 

Can be anything, French Mandarin, Spanish, Klingon. Provide great subtitles on the DVD. There are some very obvious downsides to this in terms of marketability.

 

 

Hope that helps a little Richard. :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

I feel that poor marketing and ignoring what the consumer wants and the fact there is more than one market is at the root of the problem.

 

This has happened over and over again. It is people seeing a problem instead of an opportunity.

Take magnetic tape. The music industry got very upset that people could just record stuff on cassettes etc and caused a right stink about it all. Then they woke up and started selling cassettes. They made loads of money. People wanted cassettes because they were more convienient (play in car, walkman) They also wanted Vinyl as it wasn't crap. However they never really got to understand these markets and such so got themselves in a right mess with cd's. mp3's etc. I think its down to not understanding the technology and what different ppl want to do with it.

 

The movie industry have understood this a little bit in that it still has the cinema experience and recognises that it is different to the DVD thing. To a limited extent they understand there is a rental market for DVD's and a sale market (admittedly they had trouble with this idea at first too). Many people here have clearly identified that illegal downloads appeal to a certain market. Often it is paticular films that get pirated (Iron Man and not Australia for example).

 

They need to create a market for legal downloads. They need to make them cheap. They need to identify what the market is and how people use the technology involved and way it appeals to those people. They need to realise that one size doesn't fit all.

 

A sensible plan might be:

 

A strategy for legal downloads.

A strategy for Video Sales.

A strategy for cinema.

 

I suspect that downloads may suplant video rentals to some extent as it is the ideal technology for this. They should recognise too that people may still want to buy a disc or whatever to own. They need to understand that these things are different markets and that different people will want different things that suit their needs better.

 

This too may actually affect the films made. Different people want different kind of films and for obvious economic reasons the industry had tried to create films that are mononlithic in their appeal. Such films tend to be disposable in nature which is a good march for rentals and downloads but it is worth recognising that there may be a completely different market out there too!

 

To those who think nothing can beat free, I would suggest you check out the iphone market where apple charge $1 for each app which is silly cheap, but as a result loads of people buy, and there is no infrastructure or conventional manufacturing costs.

 

As has been suggested by at least one other poster here tho, the problem is the corrupt fat cats who are bringing everything crashing down around us, not just talking about the movie industry but many things in our societys. They think too much of themselves and not of others and they have made themselves gatekeepers.

 

Greed is not good. it's not neccesarily even profitable or viable.

 

love

 

Freya

[Sasha Riu]

Perception of people who (nominaly and supposely) fight piracy and people who are doing it, are completely opposite!

 

There is not a least understanding of the opposite side whatsoever.

 

What now is considered il/legal, tommorow might be perceived as completely opposite!

 

F ornication

U nder the

C onsent of the

K ing

 

 

In the time, not so long ago, to consumate your own marriage on your own free will was, to express myself in today's vocabulary -ILLEGAL!

 

You had to obtain the consent of the King to do so.

 

Now, how do you feel when I tell you that enjoying your better half, use to be illegal?!

You are probably laughing right...

 

 

Well, there is a great chance that in 30 years or so, people will laugh on the notion that somebody wanted to illegalize free sharing of the music, movies, pictures all of which serve first and foremost - as a joy of life!

(un/holly inqisition)

 

And why is that?

 

Because few big wigs (managers, CEOs, senior-junior tit-and-tat) don't want to give up their (undeserved) profits, and stubornly deny the reality of life.

 

If "Star Wars" DVD in Virgin and K-mart stores would cost 3 $, there would be no illegal 2$ copies on Canal Street, because Mafia who really runs the biz of piracy (that acctualy does cost a lot to run) would find no means and profit to produce these 2$ illegal DVDs.

 

On-line piracy is just a side effect.

Vigilantism of the people who decided to look for their own justice, because they don't belive in explanation and excuses why DVD in Virgin and K-mart has to costs 20$.

 

When faced with choice:

20$ in the store

2$ on the street around the corner

 

In the head of todays kid, there is only one thing in mind!

 

Suspicion about fairness and justice.

 

The only way to fight it is :

 

-education of the consumers

 

...Something that big wigs dont' belive in!

 

They wanna use repression and their iron fist.

 

But, by the time they realise their mistake and declare their "Peir Victory" (because warfare for the sake of peace, is the same thing like **(obscenity removed)**ing for virginity), we will all loose our jobs, because piracy ineventably leads to drastic shrinking in production in all aspects.

 

I am obviously totaly againts piracy of any kind!

 

But even more, I am against the strategies and means that society today chose to fight piracy with!!!

Edited July 8, 2009 by Sasha Riu

[Tom Lowe]

If a Bluray sells for 25 bucks, and a fast, secure, legal, non-DRM'd download of 1080p was available, I bet you would not only sell five times as many copies, you would sell ten times as many. Plus you would remove the motivation for a lot of pirates.

 

But of course, this is WAY too logical for the idiots in the entertainment industry to grasp.

[Will Earl]

I disagree with what many of you are saying about it being 'stealing' and morally wrong. Theft means that you are taking SOMETHING away from someone. Yes, copying a movie can be stealing, but only if the person was going to pay for it in the first place.

 

Well I guess technically it's copyright infringement. But even with that technical consideration your logic doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Call me silly but don't most people steal stuff because they have no intention of paying for it.

 

I'm not sure what the legalities are around sneaking it to a cinema without paying, but downloading a film would be akin to that.

 

Itunes (and others) have shown that given the opportunity people will pay for their music downloads, I think given the right price people would be willing to pay for film downloads.

[Patrick A Murray]

That is exactly right. The people who are downloading films and music are often people who don't have the money to blow on these products, and would have NEVER paid for it otherwise.

 

There is another demographic and possibly the reason why a movie like Dark Knight gets the most downloads, but still breaks box office records. Alot of people, in my experience, download movies they've already seen.

 

It's been so long since VHS, DVD, Blu Ray rentals and pay movie channels (especially now that we don't have to wait at least a year after a film is released to theatres) that we've probably forgotten about a movie going demographic that once thought nothing of going back to see a favourite movie two or three times during its run. Now, instead of paying 2 or 3 or more admissions, that person can watch the movie in the theatre once and download for multiple viewings at home.

 

It's still taking revenue away from the studios, but the downloader has at least paid to watch the movie once.

[Daniel Sheehy]

F ornication

U nder the

C onsent of the

K ing

 

 

In the time, not so long ago, to consumate your own marriage on your own free will was, to express myself in today's vocabulary -ILLEGAL!

 

You had to obtain the consent of the King to do so.

 

I believe this to be discredited. Take a look at snopes.com for this one. I tried to post the link, but apparently I can't use the word **obscenity removed** here. :)

Edited July 9, 2009 by Daniel Sheehy

[Sasha Riu]

I believe this to be discredited. Take a look at snopes.com for this one. I tried to post the link, but apparently I can't use the word **obscenity removed** here. :)

 

 

Here, let me try:

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/**(obscenity removed)**.asp

 

 

 

OK, maybe my knowledge is wrong and I used wrong example to illustrate, but essentially, that doesn't change what I tried to say initially:

 

Things that at one period or time are considered illegal, might have a great chance to be proclaimed as legal in the future (and vice versa)!!!

 

And in that regard both this post of mine, and your previous one, could be considered a quite off topic here

:)

[Tom Lowe]

Oh and BTW, not only should 1080p downloads cost $5, but Bluray discs should as well. What does it cost to mass produce those? Something like 60 cents, if I recall. If Sony is charging high fees for Bluray, then maybe 6 bucks. If they sold Bluray discs for 5 bucks, the number of discs sold would increase by astronomical amounts, and more people would own legal copies of films they love. Piracy of 1080p material would be reduced to near nothing, since a 1080p download takes a very long time, even over a fast connection. But once again, this would be WAY too logical for movie industry executives to consider.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Tom Lowe