Piracy & outdated distrubition : A Debate...

mr-modern-life

mr-modern-life

I have downloaded a film.

Illegally. A torrent. Why? because it was NEVER being released in its form in the Uk and I wanted to see it as the directors intended. Is that REALLY wrong? (BTW teh film was Grindhouse that was never released in it's full form in the uk)

To confuse things - I am a film maker who has had HIS work downloaded illegally also. But beacuse it meant MORE peopel were watching it than the DVD distruibutor managed and I couldnt get the rights back ... to be honest I didn't care and in fact was flattered that someone too the time to do it.

Did I loose some money? Maybe. Did a few thousand people download it and watch it that otherwise would never have seen it? Yes.

It got me thinking. The way studios are currently are they not ENCOURGAING piracy by using a distribution model that is almost 20 years out of date. This lead me to write my latest article in COMBAT magazine about this...

Time To Get It Together… How the studios are encouraging illegal downloading…

Trying to get to see WAR to review it for Combat was near impossible. The closest screening was miles away and, in the end, I had to undertake a 2 hour + roundtrip to see the film driving past numerous cinemas which COULD have been screening it. Now I understand the film wasn’t a massive hit and didn’t do great business but I’m sure wasn’t the only one who wanted to but struggled to catch it at the cinema. A friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) knew of my frustration and, late one evening, handed me a copy of said film on DVD.

Import? Screener? Nope. He had, in fact, downloaded the film from online in under two hours. Less time than I spent commuting…

As a film maker I can not condone illegal downloading or piracy. These acts do affect profits and often Indie films people’s pockets. But as a fan, well as a fan who has to travel miles to see a film, or has to wait months to see TV shows & movies from the US and internationally, I can’t criticise it either.

Our current release model (UK) is now almost twenty years old and since those days of three TV stations and VHS rentals new technology like DVD’s, broadband, satellite and downloading have change the way we view films and television forever.

The studios moan that piracy costs them billions but seem unwilling to do little to change the NEED to watch or download these movies. Lets look at the facts - Cinemas ARE overpriced and often unpleasant places - they smell and you hardly ever get a good screening with no popcorn noise, new DVD’s are still overpriced (as are new formats like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) and whilst rental has improved the market has been choked by Blockbuster. I have over £5K’s worth of home entertainment equipment at home… Why can’t I watch a film on the day of release in the comfort of my home? More than ever we have choice now and the studios need to embrace this.

My sollution: Why cant films (at a premium) be available on DVD to rent or buy on the same day as the cinema onthe say day as PPV on TV. As each period passed the price of one gets cheaper, as it always does (a rental release for Blockbuster is more expensive than a retail relase for the consumer).

This would allow people INTERNATIONALLY to see films teh same tiem as the US, in a way that would choke piracy.

Simply put, if the studios want to stop piracy and illegal downloading? Then lets have a full review of HOW we release films…
 
I heat to break it to you, Phil, but piracy is still piracy.
  • Yeah, the distribution system hasn't kept up with the times and is sorely in need to be reborn to properly utilize modern technologies.
  • The people running the studios are greedy bastards.
  • Commercial movies suck.
You make some valid arguments there. But the one thing that really sticks out is that you actually signed your name to the above post after saying "I have downloaded a film. Illegally. A torrent. "

You see, as much as I don't care of the current system of distribution, studio management and money trails, I still think piracy is wrong. Every movie I have has been purchased on VHS or DVD. I don't torrent anything. Admitting to it is also a slap in the face to technology and gives the greedy bastards at the **AA just cause to sue and terrorize its own legally paying customers.

Phil, I'm *NOT* saying that you should be locked up for five years for what you did, but if you disagree with something, don't give the other side ammunition to make it worse for you. :)
 
My point is this.

What has the industry EVER done for me. I bought the BETAMAX then replaced it with the VHS, then the laser disk, the DVD and now the HD-DVD (soon to be replaced by the BluRay Disk).

I have rented the film, paid to see it in the cinema and in my time spent MORE MONEY than most of films, equipment to play films and replacing a film numerous times when the next better version comes along.

Yes I downloaded ONE FILM. One film that (for the record) I have attoned for by paying to see BOTH in the cinema and buying BOTH on DVD. My soul feels okay with this. I only did this because some idiot stuido head deemed I wasnt allowed to see this film.

(And yes I also bough the so called Video nasty's in the 80's and since bought them all again on DVD).

At what point do I carry on putting up with crap cinemas, over priced DVD's both rental and retail and say SCREW IT! I've given these bastards enough money now I want something back FOR FREE.

See I watched Batman & Robin, Phanton Menance, Catwoman, Isaldn Of Dr Moroux, Now & Then. I have endured Titanic and numerous (in fact HUNDRED's ney THOUSANDS) of rubbish movies and OCCASIONALLY get rewarded by one gem.

But right now, as I watch the HD-DVD's I have bought go the same way as the VHS, BETAMAX, Laser Disk and UMD formats I'm starting to think I deserve to be treated better.

And if I a self proclaimed cinefile is starting to think piracy may be a good idea (even though i still will never go down that route) I can see why others turn a lot easier.
 
mr-modern-life said:
My point is this.

What has the industry EVER done for me. ...
Click to expand...

The industry is not obligated to do anything for you, as you are not obligated to do anything for them. When you make a purchase, you get certain viewing rights. I don't think there is a warranty that guarantees that you will enjoy the film.

I'm afraid that I fall into the "Piracy is Piracy" camp, analogous to "theft is theft". I believe I have the right to put a value on my work and stipulate how it will be used, and I afford other content producers the same right. If a consumer does not agree to my stipulations or want to pay the price I'm asking, then they can simply walk away.

There are many great movies I've not seen, for one reason or another. My life goes on. I have friends who download movies because it is convenient. I do not beat them up about it, nor do I condone it. However, when someone tells me they are entitled to something, my nostrils flare a little. When we are born, we are entitled to die, and that is all.
 
I disagree. If we walked away from movies, making and watching the industry would die. We make and break movies and studios, stars and directors. We are more powerful than the studios - if we wtach a film and its good we go back, buy the dvd, tell people. If we hate it we do the opposite.

This gives us teh right NOt to be ripped off or at least treated with respect.
 
I found an over-priced candy bar once, I didn't steal it and eat it in protest of the exorbitant price...or the fact that it was stale.
 
Seriously. Whyas consumers do we stand we being treated unfairly.

Why should I not get to see a film that I wanted to see becuase a studio head decided that they didnt want to release it here. Hell if that was my movie I'd be stoked that someone thought "fuck no one's gunna let me see it so I'll go to the effort to get it anyway"

Oh and I bought them. BOTH. This was not a move I shed a tear over.
 
I download movies a lot. And much like you, if I like them, I buy them, and if not, I don't buy them. I got 200+ DVD's. I'm past the morality issue personally, so I really don't care to hear "piracy! theft!". Sharing this with you, so it didn't seem like I was totally against you ;)


However, they don't owe you anything. Your argument doesn't make sense. At all.

"Hell if that was my movie I'd be stoked that someone thought "fuck no one's gunna let me see it so I'll go to the effort to get it anyway""

But, it's not. There is plenty of business that goes behind making a movie. Sure the director might just want people to see his work, but there's a producer who paid for it all, hoping to make money on it, so he can produce another one, and another one, and so on.
 
mr-modern-life said:
I disagree. If we walked away from movies, making and watching the industry would die. We make and break movies and studios, stars and directors. We are more powerful than the studios - if we wtach a film and its good we go back, buy the dvd, tell people. If we hate it we do the opposite.
Click to expand...

The same logic applies to any consumer product, but I still can't justify stealing the product in the interest of promoting it. Also, you could make the same case for the pirate industry; if we all just walked away, they would also go broke.

Look, I'm not allied with the RIAA and their greedy business practices. I just stand by their right to run their business the way they see fit. If I don't like it, I don't support them. I say we all stop going to the cinema, buying DVDs, or otherwise supporting the industry until the big producers go broke, and the labor unions lose their power, so we can inject some new blood and common sense into the industry.

However, boycotting the product does not equate to taking it and not paying for it.

Danny Rollings had a clear conscience too.
 
Piracy is wrong. It is illegal and it is stealing. That's the bottom line. No matter how someone tries to justify downloading a torrent or purchasing a pirated copy of a movie, it still comes down to the fact that this action was wrong, plain and clear.

Much like some other have mentioned here, yes studios and the "industry" includes greedy people who loke to inflate prices that consumers have to deal with. However, that does not give anyone the right to steal a movie just because it wasn't released in his or her country or he or she cannot afford it.

The candy bar example mentioned by another member on this thread makes perfect sense. If one downloads a stolen movie, thus stealing it themselves also, how far does that go? Boxed Cereal is not cheap at the grocery store, so should those who believe they are being ripped off just take the cereal out of the store without paying for it? Then what happens to all of the factory workers and other people who have families to feed? What does a thief have to say to them? Not a thing, because thieves aren't thinking about who they affect by their actions, whether small or large actions.

I can completely understand how some filmmakers are ok with people downlading their films and sharing them willingly as long as they are gaining and audience and their film isn't sitting on the shelf, but for every group of filmmakers who just want people to view their film, there is another groups of filmmakers and producers who would like to profit off of their hard work or at least make back some of the money that was spent on making the films in the first place. If the film were one of those unreleased/cult films that you can't get anywhere like one of Todd Hayne's films, maybe there would be a slight understanding of why a film was obtained through some P2P website or some type of underground network or even eBay.

However, piracy is wrong no matter how much you try to dress it up in any other way to the contrary. I have encountered such a problem with one of my own movies a few years ago, where someone had the audacity to tell me that they were going to sell my film to people because they "...have bills to pay...." and since then, I have taken more interest into this area and will not purchase or download a pirated movie whether it was released in a country where I had access to it or not. Until I owned my own Bon Jovi CD, I borrowed my mother's *purchased copy...I didn't go out and steal one. Then, whenI had the money, I bought it. So what if the movie wasn't released or wasn't released on your area. Petition the studios to do so before you go on the other side of the problem and side with the thieves who are taking money away from hard working people.

Case in point, there was a particular season of an 90's TV show that was not released when I inquired about it at a few stores in say 2004. To add some understanding to your situation, I did entertain the thought of finding it through P2P network or on Youtube. However, I refused to do so because I knew it wouldn't be right and guess what........that season was released last year in the Spring/Summer of 2007. So maybe a little bit of patience could have helped in your particular situation.
 
I found an over-priced candy bar once, I didn't steal it and eat it in protest of the exorbitant price...or the fact that it was stale.
Click to expand...

Candy bars ain't art, compadre, and you ain't no candy-bar-maker... there's a difference between a film (which is essentially (one hopes) a piece of art, a vision, a dream, a story, a performance and a statement (and should be free)) and PRODUCTS and SERVICES. Product = DVD... Service = Rental of big-screen and sound-system in a cinema.

A film is an idea that's been put on paper and then banged out into reality with money and items by people... so the people working on it have to get paid so they can eat ... but look at ol' Leo....Da Vinci's paintings and designs, which I'm sure some batty renaissance "patrons of the arts" paid a bundle for (Probably just for the prestige and the art alone... I mean, I don't think they'd make a profit on "paintings" unless they're selling them to other batty old men)... but he was able to live off his art by selling it... just like filmmakers in the upper echelons are able to. I'm sure people have made fake paintings of Mona Lisa and made rich men into poor suckers... just as filmmakers can make knock-offs of good films and sell them to TV stations and Distributors...

Coming back to the 21st century and all of a sudden "art" is replaced "entertainment" and is no longer for the upper class or for provocation of thought, but is now a PRODUCT, ready to be BOUGHT and SOLD... thus, the free market engine responds, and the industry is FLOODED with products that are made to appease the wants of the market, and thus Art has become perverted by dollars. That's why SAW has four-thousand sequels... because people PAY for this shit. (not me, and I haven't downloaded them either!)

Now, this may be a bit too "hippy" for a lot of you, especially those whose skills lean on the "business side" of filmmaking, but if you look at the movies who are probably most affected by piracy and downloading, I'm willing to bet that most of them are:
a) studio-produced big-budget star-studded films
b) Heavily marketed and in the view of the public eye on an international level
c) making a profit and buying a few Cadillacs for those involved

I don't know the actual percentage of piracy, but I remember for sure that it was under 10% (something like 1-4% I think- anyone wanna dig that up, I'm lazy now)... I'm pretty sure that the actual PHYSICAL THEFT of DVDs from retail stores and off the backs of trucks is probably comparable percentage wise. The internet just makes it a little easier!

The whole point is, that piracy of movies is technically "wrong", but the movies affected by it still make profits... whereas the candy-bar maker has lost both the sale and the product.

Me going online and downloading a movie costs MGM or TimeWarner nothing and there's no product loss. The assumption, is that because I downloaded the movie that's one DVD I WOULD have bought... but here's the thing... If I DON'T want to buy the DVD and DON'T want to see it in theaters, I DON'T go and DON'T buy. Other people will be out there buying movies online and purchasing DVDs and so the movie turns a profit, regardless of whether I see it or not.

As many here ARE or aspire to be, the smart filmmaker can creatively tell amazing stories for budgets as low as $7000 and generate profit. Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith are always brought up in this regard. For under $25,000, the artist can create something... then the studios spend a few million pumping it up and advertising until it blows away the bank or doesn't. The actual success, or failure rather, of the film usually lies in the marketing (see: Arrested Development, Idiocracy)... which is separate from the artist's expenses. The reason GOOD films fail in theaters is because studios didn't get the message out to the right audience or the right way... and the marketing can be more expensive than the film!

People Who:
a) sneak into movies at the cinema/work at the cinemas
b) borrow DVDs from your parents/steal them from stores
c) watch the movie at a friend's house/on television
d) download the movie online

SHOULD be factored into the marketing budget and NOT as a loss (except for the physical STEALING of a DVD)... why? Because the reason they stole your product is because they:
a) had no respect for it (theft stems from non-respectness)
b) wouldn't have paid for it in the first place

So instead, they see the movie for FREE... which will:
a) Cause them to actually like it and purchase the DVD
b) Verify their reluctance to pay for the product and no sale is made

If the above answer is "a" then you just made a sale you would not have otherwise made. If the answer is "b", what do you care that the SAW your movie. Ooooohhh... what an insult! How dare these people SEE my art without paying!!! Who do they think they are when everybody else is paying?!?!?

I'll tell you who they are- they're outside of your target market, but open-minded enough to TRY you out.

So that makes me think that the whole piracy issue is blown out of proportion. There will always BE some type of "theft" like there will always be greed, and nonchalance and art itself... whether he be the art-thief of yore or the downloading pirate of today, to expect an audience to be COMPLETELY pure and honest is folly. Grocery stores loose product and stock all the time and call it a write-off and EXPECT it... in the same sense, a downloaded film is a write-off with the possibility of winning the thief over and no cost to the studio... spoiled produce doesn't get a second chance...

If the film studios want to stop piracy, here's how:
a) Make better films, better scripts = more people WANT the film
b) Make them cheaper (by hiring indies) = more profit margins (which = less studios bitching about piracy)

That way, people WANT to by the DVD and Blueray and see it in theaters, and if they don't and download it anyway, maybe they'll NEED to get it on DVD after seeing it... It's still "wrong", but is this really a problem worth our attention? Squabbling about a few millions (if even) in a billion dollar industry, while women in Darfur are raped when they go to get water from the wells? Sure, it's wrong. Murder is a BIG wrong. Also wrong is jaywalking, but to a lesser degree. Stealing a DVD- BIG wrong. Downloading online - small wrong.

Still think it's WRONG? Congratulations. You're one of the people who buy every DVD and pay for every movie! But do you buy EVERY DVD???? If YOU stopped buying DVDs, would that kill the industry? No. There's flux. The other day, at HMV, I found Terminator 3 for $3.99.... ka-ching, sold. That was still too much to pay, in my opinion, but I'm an Arnold Junkie. And even though it wasn't on sale, I ended up getting Jackie Brown, to complete my Tarantino collection. I'll admit to having downloaded that one to see it, and let's just say it's not my favorite Tarantino flick, but I had been told it was BAD before I saw it (thus never bothered), and after "illegally downloading" it, I ended up seeing it on the shelf and reaching out.

Ka-ching. There's some more profit for you, QT... a little something for Inglorious Bastards. I've spent at least a year's worth of paychecks on DVDs... and there's SOOO MUCH product out there that I haven't even seen HALF of the movies I'd even LIKE to.... so why would I pay to see Spiderman 3??? (I saw it on an airplane, actually, and wouldn't even bother DOWNLOADING it) And if I didn't pay, would Sam Raimi care? Would the studios care? Considering how much freaking money that movie made?

So while I agree that the moral majority gains the status of "right" in regards to piracy being "wrong", it should be a perception and not a law, and I am more apt to agree with Mr. Modern due to my continued self-glorification as a shit-disturber and rouge-for-hire.

If you can tell me the story of a little indie film that could being crushed by piracy, I'd probably ask you how they accomplished getting enough people interested enough in their film to pirate it... and why they didn't make a profit of the other 90% of people who pay for watching movies.

I download movies, I admit it. But I rent and buy WAY more than I download.

...for every group of filmmakers who just want people to view their film, there is another groups of filmmakers and producers who would like to profit off of their hard work or at least make back some of the money that was spent on making the films in the first place.
Click to expand...

What, you mean the producers from films that make 100-million plus?
Or indies?

Because as I said above, I think piracy effects the big-boys more than the indies... otherwise, people wouldn't know what to illegally download. If a film isn't turning a profit, I'd HARDLY say that it was due to piracy... probably either a shitty script, shitty acting, shitty story, shitty marketing, etc...

Until I owned my own Bon Jovi CD, I borrowed my mother's *purchased copy...I didn't go out and steal one. Then, whenI had the money, I bought it.
Click to expand...

So, I'm just gonna "borrow" a movie from whoever ripped it and put it online... See? Borrowing and Downloading should be lumped in the same category, because both instances result in someone NOT paying for the movie and NO additional cost to the studio.
 
Spatula,

Most of your argument is addressing the question of how much piracy is actually hurting and who it is hurting. I would tend to agree that the numbers put forth by the industry are artificially inflated for policy makers. However, the fact remains that if we declare piracy to be legal and morally acceptable, then the industry as we know it will cease to exist, along with the big budget films. The reason those producers can continue to enhance their obscene wealth is because most of us do pay them for the entertainment they provide. Once you pull out the stops and declare free downloading legal and ethical, the downloads will meet or exceed the quality of DVDs and nobody will bother paying for any movie. Especially since it would probably appear on the internet before it was even released in the cinema.

In conclusion, the argument is not how much does it hurt if some of us look the other way, but can we afford to declare open season on downloading. I, for one, will not take any liberties with someone else's intellectual property. For me, it comes down to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"; no reference to religion intended. There is no movie that is so important to me that I would breech my ethics to see it.
 
Spatula,
I still have a ways to go when it comes to using certain forum features, so instead of quoting certain areas, I'm just going to have to address some points as a whole.

You make good points and I would even agree on some of them, but while it would be great to just sit back and accept the fact that only a minimal percentage of piracy is going on, there is not way to justify stealing movies. I realize that both downloading and borrowing a movie results in someone not paying for it, but the CD example was made only to emphasize the fact that one should wait until they can afford a movie or until they have access to it when it is released by a studio, so that he or she can then PURCHASE it.

Borrowing a Bon Jovi Album cannot be combined with someone downloading a movie or buying a movie that they know was NOT released from the studio, but in fact, someone else who does not wish to abide by the law. Therefore, those who download or purchase pirated content are aiding and abetting in this crime and borrowing from a friend or relative is not the same thing. My mother and I lived in the same house, therefore, since she had the Bon Jovi album, I played it in my room and on my radio when she wasn't playing it on hers. Saying that this type of borrowing should be in the same category as downloading makes sense on one end, but on another, that would be like saying one family should by 5 DVDs of the same movie to watch in the same household on the same DVD player instead of enjoying it together or at different times that are convenient to each member of that household.

I wanted my own album so that I could listen to it at my leisure instead of having to ask my mother to borrow hers. Those who are downloading content that they know has been ripped and copied without proper authorization are just as guilty as those who are providing the content.

There ARE indies that have been affected by piracy and there ARE "little indie film(s)" that could be crushed by piracy, especially if those films are being self-distributed. Jay Craven and Alex Ferrari made thousands of dollars from self-distributing their films. If those films were pirated, that would be money taken out of their pockets. If someone was interested in one of their movies and had access to a torrent or a cheap pirated disc, why would they want to buy it when they can get it for free or for $3-$5? They wouldn’t, which takes potential profits away from those “little indie film(s)” that you claim aren’t affected much by piracy. Also, I had a problem with piracy and a movie that I made a few years back. and the issue here is not just accepting that, taking it as a loss and making “a profit of the other 90% of people who pay for watching movies.” because it isn’t about that, or at least for me. I can only speak for myself with regard to this particular section of my comment when I say that it’s not about me being able to sell a film to “90%” of the leftover people.

It is about the fact that no one had the right to take it upon themselves to sell my movie and screen it without my authorization. I believe this same position lies with other filmmakers out there and the ones here on IndieTalk who make films that they want to exhibit on their terms or at least have some say on how it is being distributed. After all, it is their film. Piracy does not just affect the big studios that are allegedly ripping everyone off….it affects independent filmmakers as well.

If an indie film is picked up and in limited release or the theatrical run is self-distributed through four walling, piracy can have a negative impact on the success of an indie film going this route as well. The film Bend It Like Beckham was affected by piracy and while it may have had a bigger audience than say, Four Eyed Monsters, both films should be able to get every audience member and every DVD or ticket sale that they can. Four Eyed Monsters was released for free and then sold later, but that doesn’t mean that some guy or gal on a college dorm room has the right to make copies and profit off of the work without the filmmakers getting one dime from those sales.
 
oakstreetphotovideo said:
In conclusion, the argument is not how much does it hurt if some of us look the other way, but can we afford to declare open season on downloading. I, for one, will not take any liberties with someone else's intellectual property. For me, it comes down to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"; no reference to religion intended. There is no movie that is so important to me that I would breech my ethics to see it.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
QUOTE : "Piracy is wrong. It is illegal and it is stealing. "
This is SUCH a simplistic argument.

What I dont understand is we villify the people who download but not the studios for ripping us off. It's odd.

QUOTE: "Borrowing a Bon Jovi Album cannot be combined with someone downloading a movie or buying a movie that they know was NOT released from the studio"

Actually by the logic on display here it's exactly the same. It is a breach of (c) and therefore illegal.

My point is simple. For my money the studios are almost encouraging piracy but not looking at the system as a whole and seeing how they can best fit it for the consumer. Until they do piracy will be rife and it falls to teh studios to be creative to solve the issue.
 
The question of whether we as individuals would or would not download isn't important. This isn't an issue that revolves around personal choice, simply because as long as people are able to download some will choose to, some will chose not to.

Piracy isn't going to be ended by people pointing out how wrong it is... and the fact I'm forced to watch an anti-piracy commercial every time I rent or buy proves to me the industry is looking at this all wrong.

Mr Modern Life's original point about the distribution industry's failure to adapt to new circumstances is much more interesting than dissecting our individual moral stances. Once you accept people viewing movies for free is inevitable then you have to look at how the industry can adapt to the new world order.

The end to staggered releases and a cheap legal download provider seems to be the obvious route.

However, my guess is that is going to be fiercely resisted by the industry... because at that point what's to stop the talent ditching the distributors and going it alone... much as some major bands have done recently.

With the main studios backing away from production in favor of distribution, you have to ask yourself whether they've made the right move. Unless, of course, they have a clearer idea of what's coming from a technical pov.

My guess is they'll try to tie the data to the technology, making possible only to pirate film analogue... using the quality difference to keep sales firm.
 
mr-modern-life said:
Actually by the logic on display here it's exactly the same. It is a breach of (c) and therefore illegal.
Click to expand...
Copying and borrowing are two very different things. Copyright allows for me to read a book, then sell it or give it away. It also allows for me to loan, sell, or give away my licensed copy of an audio cassette. It does not allow me to make unlicensed copies for other people. More specifically, most movies are covered by the DMCA which even bans copying that would be legal under the "fair use" clause of copyright law ... which, BTW is one valid example of how the industry has perverted the laws in their favor.

Clive, I'd love to work for free, but I don't have that option, as I would have no place to live, no electricity, and no food to eat. When I cannot charge for my work, I will simply have to quit working and forage for food. Sure there can be new paradigms in distribution, and new ways of collecting money such as PPV, but if the product loses it's value because consumers don't feel they should pay for something they use or enjoy, then there will be no product. You will get what you pay for.

I believe this is already happening in the music industry. I much prefer music from the 70's and 80's. I think the production values were higher. It would be easy to attribute that to my age/taste, but I've found many people half my age who feel the same way.

After watching YouTube for a couple of hours, I'd rather watch a B-Movie. When all video content is ripped and distributed on YouTube, I will be watching my old DVDs and listening to Mozart. I don't think I will be alone.
 
Clive, I'd love to work for free, but I don't have that option, as I would have no place to live, no electricity, and no food to eat. When I cannot charge for my work, I will simply have to quit working and forage for food. Sure there can be new paradigms in distribution, and new ways of collecting money such as PPV, but if the product loses it's value because consumers don't feel they should pay for something they use or enjoy, then there will be no product. You will get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my answer.

I wasn't suggesting that the industry should give films away for free... although I have in the past suggested that to film makers wanting to build an audience.

I was suggesting that by getting rid of staggered releases and by using a system like iTunes for distribution, then chances are the vast majority of people will choose to pay $4 to download a movie, rather than going with bit-torrent piracy.

The music industry has seen Napster go legal and iTunes become a major success... and although people still do steal music, I'm with Spat on that issue... it exists and I'm not sure how much it actually harms the market.

The industry currently creates a market which encourages piracy, by releasing films in cinemas before releasing DVD's and releasing in the US before the rest of the world. There is bound to be downloading as long as people can see Hollywood's latest releases via illegal download a good three months before they can see them in cinema.

And, if companies chose not to distribute a film in a particular territory, in any form, then they should expect people to find work arounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top